Front Page  »  

Santa Maria police officers shot each other

December 13, 2011

Danny Macagni

The only bullets fired in Thursday’s fusillade killing a 24-year-old Santa Maria man and wounding two officers came from police weapons.

A local newspaper initially reported that the fatally wounded man, Samyr Ceballos, started a shootout.

“Never once did I say (Ceballos) fired first,” Santa Maria Police Chief Danny Macagni told CalCoastNews today. “I made it a very distinct point not to say that. I try to keep the facts on point as much as possible.”

Macagni said he was “at the scene.” But he also said that “at no time did I say to anyone that these officers had been fired on. It wasn’t that he (Ceballos) didn’t try… he had his finger on the trigger.”

The two injured officers, one hit in the hand, the other in a leg, were treated and released from local hospitals. None of the officers involved have been identified.

Ceballos was driving a black SUV and had parked in front of a West Agnes Avenue home when he was approached by officers attempting to serve a drug-related search and arrest warrant.

Macagni said Ceballos’ “intent was clear. We knew going in that we were going to have a confrontation with this guy. We knew he wasn’t going to cooperate.”  One officer used a Tazer on Ceballos, who then reportedly emerged from the vehicle holding a handgun.

Subsequent investigation verified that the handgun police allege Ceballos had in his possession had not been fired.

Immediately after the shooting incident, the four officers involved were placed on paid administrative leave pending completion of an investigation by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney.

In post-event comments, Macagni described Ceballos as “a documented West Park gang member well known to the criminal justice system.”


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


107 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I posted this other “mistake” made by LEOs in Santa Maria, but in light of this story, I will share it again for anyone who may have missed it before:


http://gawker.com/5866926/idiot-swat-team-tries-to-catch-guy-who-was-already-in-prison


0

And I apologize for posting it again as CCN did an excellent job in making it a story!


0

Holy fracking toledo.


Boy, that is one cracker-jack SWAT team SM has, isn’t it?


0

“In post-event comments, Macagni described Ceballos as “a documented West Park gang member well known to the criminal justice system.”


———–


It’s not enough that the SMPD murdered a civilian. The police chief has to demonize him, too.


It doesn’t matter whether the dead civilian belonged to a gang or not. He was murdered by SMPD officers. THAT is what matters.


In addition, I don’t automatically believe that the victim was carrying a gun, and certainly don’t automatically believe that he had his finger on the trigger. That sounds like a made-up detail to justify the SMPD murdering the victim.


I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve read and heard about so many similar situations where, at the end, it turns out the victim wasn’t armed.


0

Stating facts “a documented West Park gang member” is not demonizing anyone. Being on parole from prison is also a fact.


You are way out of line accusing the Santa Maria Police of murdering someone. And for your information, being a gang member makes a difference in our legal system. It does matter.


0

No, frankly, she is not out of line accusing the Santa Maria Police of murdering someone. These idiot officers actually shot EACH OTHER and killed this guy and there was no round fired from his gun!? In light of that, and after incident after incident of idiotic behavior, incompetence, excessive force, etc, what is going to take before you stop giving this people the benefit of the doubt?


They certainly don’t treat anyone as being innocent until proven guilty, why should they expect anyone to give them that benefit of the doubt?


Nearly every time we read one a story about a citizen being shot now, it starts to get fishy when the layers are peeled back. It’s getting ridiculous


0

This is something a detective once told me (loose quote, but concept is accurate):


“It’s very difficult for someone to, over time, consistently tell and re-tell a story that is true, without details becoming inconsistent. It becomes a lot more difficult if the story isn’t true.


There already appear to be some inconsistencies in the official version of what happened between the SMPD and Ceballos. This is not good.


The fact that there has not yet been anything but a cursory disclosure by the SMPD regarding the events leading up to the tazing, and events surrounding both the death of Mr. Ceballos, is very telling.


If the disclosure would help exonerate the police involved in the shooting, the SMPD would have, by now, disclosed their kiesters off.


———-


Indeed, as quoted in this CCN article, Police Chief Magnini said some things that open up more questions.


““Never once did I say (Ceballos) fired first,” Santa Maria Police Chief Danny Macagni told CalCoastNews today. “I made it a very distinct point not to say that. I try to keep the facts on point as much as possible.” Macagni said he was “at the scene.” But he also said that “at no time did I say to anyone that these officers had been fired on. It wasn’t that he (Ceballos) didn’t try… he had his finger on the trigger.”…Macagni said Ceballos’ “intent was clear. We knew going in that we were going to have a confrontation with this guy. We knew he wasn’t going to cooperate.”


1. Magnini sounds a little defensive in his “Never once did I say” comment.


2. Magnini says he was at the scene and, apparently just from being at the scene, he knows that Ceballos “didn’t try” (to shot the officers), that Ceballos’ “intent was clear. We knew going in that we were going to have a confrontation…” Really. How did “they” know? Psychic intuition? Did TedSlanders’ God tell them? The fact is, Ceballos didn’t shoot. At this point, until I see the video footage, I don’t even believe he had a gun.


———–


And Monday’s SMTimes article opens up even more questions.


As reported by the SM Times on 12/12/2011 (http://tinyurl.com/c8ae9wr):


“The officers were struck by rounds during a flurry of gunshots Thursday morning as police detectives and SWAT officers attempted to arrest Samyr Ceballos when he confronted them after a brief vehicle chase. Both officers were hit by shots fired from fellow officers, according to Macagni...”We don’t have ballistics yet, but from what we’re being told, that is the case”…..Police say Ceballos confronted them with a gun and he was shot several times and died at the scene. All four officers who fired shots in the confrontation have been placed on administrative leave. Macagni said they will remain off the job until the District Attorney’s Office reviews the sheriff’s investigation and makes a determination about the case.


1. Macagni states Ceballos “confronted” the officers. What was the nature of the confrontation? What actually occurred? Did the reported confrontation justify tazing and a “flurry of gunshots” from police, detectives, and the SWAT team?


2.. There was a SWAT team there, as well as detectives. According to the article, there was a “flurry of gunshots…as police detectives and SWAT officers attempted to arrest Samyr Ceballos.” Chief Macagni said both officers were wounded by fellow officers, but they don’t have ballistics back yet, however he indicates “he was told” that was the case.


Who told Macagni “that was the case”? How can Macagni, or anyone else, know who shot whom if they don’t have ballistics? This raises the specter of the authorities already deciding what they want the outcome of ballistics to be, and monkeying around with the testing until they can get something close.


If there was a “flurry of gunshots,” wouldn’t one assume the target was actually hit more than “several times”? Where did the rest of the “flurry” end up? This took place in a residential neighborhood. Was this testosterone-laden approach REALLY necessary in a residential neighborhood? How did it escalate to such a mess?


3. The article indicates “All four officers who fired shots in the confrontation have been placed on administrative leave.”


Okay, we have the two officers who were shot, but who are the other two? And, since they don’t have ballistics back, how do they know that, out of all of the SWAT, detectives, police officers, and police chief present, only two others fired shots?


That means that there were a lot of professionals there, from police chief to detectives to police officers to the SWAT team–and only four fired their weapons?


Doesn’t that sound like the rest of the professionals there didn’t think the situation warranted firing a “flurry of gunshots”?


0

Citizen,


Within the same vein, Mary forgot to be upset over the stated fact that the officers were attempting to serve a drug-related search and arrest warrant! She also was remiss in that they had to use a tazer on him, which signifies that he was resisting arrest! Why was Mary silent upon these stated facts?


Furthermore, if a person has a gun in their hand, has a warrant for their arrest, and resists arrest, and “if” he had his finger on the trigger, well, sorry, that person made the wrong decision. It seems his game should be called because of darkness. What are the police protocols for a situation like this? To protect innocent life in the neighborhood, it seems that they have to be the aggressor, period!


OMG, I could see the same situation where police didn’t take this guy out subsequent TO HIM HAVING A GUN IN HAND AND AFTER BEING TAZERED, and he was able to use his gun, and he hit an innocent child across the street. Can you imagine the uproar against the SM Police Dept for not taking him down sooner?! Front page news for weeks! Error on the side of caution? Who knows? Mary, I can play hypotheticals too! :)


0

The problem, Ted, is that the way this story has been spun is not making you question the facts as the police have presented them. You start with the presumption that what they’ve told you is true. Why would a paroled felon with his finger on the trigger not actually pull the trigger?


I think that lots of people have read articles like the one in the Tribune on this, and because the police have their PR people to handle the press, the news often is reported only from the perspective of the police. Personally, if you do some digging, I think that you’ll find that we have some SERIOUS serious problems with law enforcement today, especially in this area.


0

LOL. I post about the issues in a subject that are of concern to me. Do you really expect all posters to list all of the statements in the article before they post an opinion on the parts of it that are of concern?


0

MaryMalone, no, not ALL posters, but just you because you “cherry-picked” your content for obvious reasons to support your opinionated hypotheticals! What I proposed was the foundation of the “cause” in why Ceballos was shot. Your weak refutation was a fallacious argument of “Argument By Selective Observation”. This is one many disingenuous fallacies that so many use to support their otherwise weak assertions. Shame on you. :(


You cannot, in part, build your argument without accepting the obligation of the whole! Logic101.


0

Miss Mary, is this description better?


“In post-event comments, Macagni described Ceballos as “a pastor of the First Baptist Church, well known for speaking the Christian view of God”


Here, let me play “conspiracy theory” with you, okay? A gang member in a new SUV in Santa Maria BY HIMSELF that isn’t armed? lol!! Surely you jest? Ask yourself, what is more probable in this case?


“In addition, I don’t automatically believe that the victim was carrying a gun…..”


We’re glad that you have a “seer stone” to be able to state that you question the fact of whether this gang member had a gun or not! Next time, clean your “seer stone” before you use it again so you’re able to make an “absolute accounting” of these situations in the future, okay?


“…….and certainly don’t automatically believe that he had his finger on the trigger.”


Mary, if you didn’t believe he had a gun in the first place, then your rhetorical response above is moot and is a wasted comment. :(


It’s so easy for some to Monday Morning Quarterback these situations with their conspiracy theories, isn’t it? WAIT, were you on the scene?!


0

Ted I like a lot of your posts.. but I have to say that I think it’s time that you recognize that nationally, and locally, police have been demonstrating a consistent record of incompetence and misinformation. Perhaps you haven’t noticed this so much because it is precisely your segment of the population which they align themselves with and serve the most, white middle class Christians who are active in the community. As such, I’m not sure that you understand to what degree a militarized police force which has no respect for average citizens has become the norm.


The way they are trained, especially, makes their job quite safe. Shoot first, lie later.


0

mkaney,


First off, to support your proposition, you assume that I am white, Christian, and active in my community. You don’t know my modus operandi any more than I know yours!


Incompetence and misinformation aside, the bottom line in this scenario, as reported, is that the gang banger had a warrant, and was under arrest, tazered, and he was holding a gun, period! This seems to be a simple outcome if he didn’t drop the gun in a neighborhood of innocent citizens, yes? I am making an assumption, so is everyone else without being there of knowing the rules of engagement and the empirical facts.


There’re protocols for the police to be able to fire upon another, of which this situation’s facts seem apropos. Do you want the ganger to fire first, then the police? Was he not warned? We need to view the protocols of when a police officer can shoot to kill to make any cogent responses.


Furthermore, you’re making a sweeping generalization by stating f “Shoot first, lie later”. You know for a FACT that all cases do not fall under this act!


0

Well, I mean, you’ve kind of presented yourself as I described, though I apologize if my presumptions are not accurate.


I am not going to give the bleeding heart argument that he was a good guy and was a victim of circumstances. But I am really quite disillusioned with what I have seen with regard to law enforcement actions in the past few years. In particular, I have found that whenever I know some factual information about the situation, it very rarely jives with the information that comes out.


So, I concede that I am making a sweeping generalization. But it is no more of a generalization than people are making all these so-called gang members and the kind of threats officers are up against. What I see, fairly consistently, is a police force that is increasingly militarized, protected by their union rules, and constantly giving out false information. If you want a perfect example, look at the Sheriff Department and Rob Bryn.


I don’t trust police any more than I trust gang bangers, quite honestly.


0

Actually, two other individuals exited the vehicle and fled on foot.


0

Yeah, and they are still alive, while the guy who stayed to talk to the police about it is now dead, so full of bullet-holes his own mother wouldn’t recognize him.l


Moral of the story: If you are Latino and get pulled over by the SMPD, take the “RUN, FORREST, RUN!!!!” approach.


0

TED: “Miss Mary, is this description better?

“In post-event comments, Macagni described Ceballos as ‘a pastor of the First Baptist Church, well known for speaking the Christian view of God’

Here, let me play ‘conspiracy theory’ with you, okay? A gang member in a new SUV in Santa Maria BY HIMSELF that isn’t armed? lol!! Surely you jest? Ask yourself, what is more probable in this case?”


——–


1. I have no problem believing someone about to be served a search warrant is ‘a pastor of the First Baptist Church, well known for speaking the Christian view of God.’


After all, Reverend Pat Robertson used his “Operation Blessing Ministry” planes–which he claimed were outfitted for medical purposes, and flown to areas of the world where medical care was needed by the poor–to fly equipment and personnel to and from his diamond mines in Zaire…diamond mines he was given by death-squad-leader-turned-president-of-Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko. Since Robertson had aided the CIA in their efforts in Africa and Central America over the years, it is no surprise that he became involved with the CIA’s efforts to support Mobutu’s death squads. For his efforts, including his lobbying efforts with the U.S. State Department to win the U.S.’ support for Mobutu , Robertson was awarded access to Zaire’s blood-diamond mines.


2. As far as your other scenario, “A gang member in a new SUV in Santa Maria BY HIMSELF that isn’t armed? lol!! Surely you jest?,” your racism is again noted.


3. Either you are woefully uninformed and are not aware of the number of murders and coverups by police and their departments, or you are gullible beyond belief.


0

I think your right on track, why the hell did they just taser him, wait for him to pull the gun and then shoot HIM, not each other, guess they didn’t get to overdose on John Wayne Movies like I did.


0

If they hadn’t gotten injured and someone hadn’t been killed this would funny. When I read the headline funny pictures came to mind, kinda a Barny Fife moment. But I am sorry about the cops getting injured. I’m also sorry for the bad guy’s family.


0

Something is amis here. Surmising the situation, if you had a shooter in front of you, you would be aiming for the shooter. I would ASSUME that the officers would be side by side or maybe stagered but still aiming forward. The only other way is if they were seperate on opposite sides. Of course you would THINK that they would be more aware of crossfire. There needs to be WAY MORE DISCLOSER here.


0

I agree, “something is amis.” “It wasn’t that he (Ceballos) didn’t try….he had hiis finger on the trigger.” They were close enough to Tazer him; pretty sure if Mr. “gang banger” would have tried, he would have succeeded. Good thing the tazer didn’t make his finger twitch.


0

They tasered him first then he emerged with a handgun, that’s the story line, but dead men tell no stories. Freeking cops with janitor IQs, what did the guy do to provoke getting shot with the taser.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


0

I think police are just getting lazy. There are so many unwarranted use of the taser that when the police actually ARE justified in using it, nobody but a gullible rube believes them.


0

This police chief won’t issue concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens, but he will arm his officers who go out and kill a citizen and put themselves in each other’s line of fire. We end up with 1 dead citizen and 2 injured officers resulting from friendly fire.


Police are terrible at preventing crime. They are wonderful at coming along afterwards and collecting evidence, but stopping it before it happens is extremely rare. In this case, it looks like they are the ones committing the crime.


Time for society to take a long hard look at 100 years of outsourcing our personal security to 3rd party agents of the government.


.


0

You’re not helping your argument for concealed guns as a matter of fact I wouldn’t have brought it up in this thread if I were you. Look at what happened to guys TRAINED to carry guns.


0

Nope.


The story illustrates that the government is inept and completely unable to provide any kind of reasonable security to individual citizens. We have to be personally responsible for our own security and not rely upon 3rd party agents of the government to protect us.


On a side note: I probably train and shoot more than most LEOs, so your argument doesn’t hold water.


0

I’m probably more trained and have shot more than those cops as well but that’s not the norm. I can think of a lot of people that I wouldn’t trust to carry a gun, like the guy I saw awhile back on the FWY that got mad at the lady on the cell phone while driving. I have a right to keep my family safe from nuts and drunks carrying guns.


” so your argument doesn’t hold water.”


That’s an opinion it’s not everyones opinion. IMO your argument doesn’t hold water.


0

“I have a right to keep my family safe from nuts and drunks carrying guns.”


WITH WHAT? A FRYING PAN?


0

If it is illegal to carry guns then I don’t have to worry about the nuts and drunks. I know I know there are those bad guys, gang bangers etc. that will carry guns anyway but not near as many if it’s not legal to carry the guns. There are a lot of perfectly decent law biding citizens walking around that have bad tempers and are easily set off. I don’t want them carrying guns and if they’re not allowed to then they won’t. I feel my odds would be greater of shot by some hot tempered goofball than some gang banger type. There are people that post in this forum that I feel shouldn’t carry guns, especially the paranoid ‘police state’ ‘anti govt’ crew.


0

In every single instance that I have ever encountered, the holder of a License To Carry (LTC) is very polite and respectful. As matter of fact, they go out of their way to avoid trouble.


You say “There are people that post in this forum that I feel shouldn’t carry guns, especially the paranoid ‘police state’ ‘anti govt’ crew.” Explain how that ‘crew’ differs from the Sons of Liberty???


On another note: Keep in mind that the Heller Supreme Court decision held that government can’t completely ban ‘Keep & Bear’. Sacramento came through with banning Unloaded Open Carry (UOC) in its past session, so the ONLY legal path now is concealed carry. Failure to issue a LTC to law abiding citizens is clearly unconstitutional and a serious affront to our civil rights.


0

Yeah yeah I’ve heard it all many times. Just don’t forget that you and the powerful gun lobby are stepping on my rights. I’m not going to explain how the crazies on this site are different from others. I’m rushing out the door but it’s pretty obvious that more crazy or hot tempered people will carry guns when allowed. Americans love to play cowboys. We are getting more stupid by the day in this country. We keep going backwards and that is why we are losing our status as world leaders. Perhaps by fighting so many wars in the middle east we are turning into them. Was that your wedding that I heard the tongue rolls and shooting at?


0

“…are stepping on my rights.”


To which rights do you refer? How does my exercise of a fundamental individual civil right negatively effect any one of your fundamental individual civil rights?


.


0

“not as many if it’s not legal”? How do you know that??? You are perfectly free not to carry a weapon if you don’t want to, but what about the rest of us? Let the criminals be the ones to cringe with fear! I refuse do it! An armed society is a polite and law abiding society far more than this damned police state. Does any law abiding citizen feel safe the way things are now? Give me the Old West!


0

““not as many if it’s not legal”? How do you know that???”


Statistically if you look at gun laws around the world then it goes to show that gun restrictions do make a difference.


Why is it so necessary for you to carry a gun? Again, I know that statistics/facts can be an embarrassing thing but I’ve posted many statistics in this forum that demonstrate that your gun probably won’t protect you from the bad guys. To the contrary, statistically, most likely some innocent slob (or you) is more likely to get injured by it than the bad guy. I don’t know you, I don’t know if I trust you in the mall next to my children with a gun. I don’t know what type of temper you have, what if you hear me calling Reagan an idiot? Are you going to go postal on me? I have a HUMAN right to keep my family safe. You can keep your guns but keep them away from me and my family.


“An armed society is a polite and law abiding society far more than this damned police state”


Can you give me an example of this and who gives you the right to decide on whether you feel people are polite? That statement sounds so vigilantish. I don’t want you making me or family ‘polite’. What other country that allows their citizens to pack heat is more law abiding and ‘polite’ that we are? The only ones that I can think of that allow people to carry guns are mostly middle eastern countries so perhaps you can enlighten me. What are these law biding pistol packing polite countries? Really, I want to know.


“Give me the Old West!”


BINGO. So typical con, no moving forward, always moving backwards. You can play Matt Dillon in your back yard with your militia buds but I don’t want to be involved.


0

“Why is it so necessary for you to carry a gun?”


For those who carry or want to, no explanation is necessary.


For those who do not or don’t want to, no explanation is possible.


0

Hey, don’t be bagging on a woman’s skills at wielding a cooking implement.


0

Obviously they were indeed trained to CARRY guns, just to properly shoot them!


0

Oh my; it is very sad that the officers were wounded, sadder still that they apparently wounded each other. Of course we don’t know all of the facts of the shooting yet (and might never know) but it seems reasonable that the killing of the suspect was completely justified since he had been tasered and he did apparently have a handgun in his hand when he stepped out of the vehicle, if one is to believe what has been reported so far. Let’s hope that the officers involved with this incident receive more weapons training to make sure there is never another shooting where officers wound each other during an attempted arrest. I’m sure that the adrenaline was flowing fast and furious, that emotions were on edge, and self preservation was at the top of each officer’s thoughts who were involved; it seems like it usually comes down to or back to training, or a lack of. Speedy recovery to the officers; let’s hope that all of the facts about this case come out into the open.


0

He may not have said it, but he sure did imply it!


0

Well, well, well. Isn’t that interesting! Shucks, even THE POLICE STATE makes mistakes now and then!


PS,


My condolences to the police officers. May they have a speedy recovery.


0

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


0
1 2 3