Santa Maria police officer accused of sex with teen

January 28, 2012

The Santa Maria police officer who was shot and killed earlier today allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl, Chief Dan Macagni said.

Police discovered the 29-year-old suspect knew he was going to be arrested for sexual misconduct with a child and intimidation of a witness. At about 1 a.m. today, department officials decided to serve an arrest warrant while the suspect officer was on duty at a DUI checkpoint.

The suspect officer struggled with arresting officers, drew his weapon and fired. He was shot once by a fellow officer and died later at Marian Medical Center from his injuries.

“(He) knew we knew, he was going to be arrested,” Macagni said.

A four-year-veteran of the department, the deceased officer left behind a wife. Officials said they will not release his identity until more members of his family are notified.

Ted Slanders

As Christians, and biblically, if this officer was in fact guilty, then he committed adultery because he was married. Therefore, when he was shot and killed, he unfortunately got what was coming to him.

“And the man that committeth adultery with another mans wife even he that committeth adultery with his neighbors wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” ( Levitcus 20:10 )

Now, God’s word in the passage above is going to be hard to accept in additionally taking the life of the 17 year old girl as well. This is one of those biblical conundrums that if we did follow our God’s word, we would be charged with “mans-law” of murder!

We’re told by the inspired word of our Christian God in the New Testament that the vicious Old Testament laws, as the Levitcus passages above so dictates, will be binding forever. “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

So, what does one do when they’re a Christian in this case relative to the 17 year old girl? This is one of the MANY times that it is hard in being a TRUE Christian. :(


Ted: (and moderator) I know this question is “off-topic”, but I am curious about those who profess to be Christians and their adherence to the Old Testament. Logically it seems to me that if one considers themselves to be a Christian, to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Bible in the form of the New Testament would be the true “word of God” to follow, with little weight given to the Old Testament. How is it so that the followers of Christ are free to go through the Old Testament and pick-and-choose which writings to follow, to give credence to, to offer a strict adherence to? It seems that if the New Testament is taking the teachings of Jesus as he preached the gospel, if Jesus didn’t bring up a topic like same-sex marriage, perhaps he either didn’t have a strong feeling about the topic one way or the other, or he felt that the topic did not need to be addressed. Is there some sort of instructions for Christians on which of the Old Testament’s writings they should follow, is it up to their Ministers, Pastors, Preachers or Father’s of the Church to instruct them, or is it just up to the individual as to what is of most importance for them to focus on? Thank you, and yes, I am being serious here, and if the moderator wants to delete this for being off-topic, so be it.

Ted Slanders


WITHIN CONTEXT OF THIS ARTICLE’S STORY, the officer is under the Old AND the New Testsment writings that were both “inspired” by the Hebrew/Christian God. No, you cannot accept the passages that you like, and disregard the passages that you don’t! You DO NOT have the authority to know more than ALL of God’s word, period.

YOUR QUOTE: “…… the New Testament would be the true “word of God” to follow, with little weight given to the Old Testament.”

WRONG! What you are proposing is the FACT that what this same God stated in the Old Testament wasn’t true?! Huh? Do you see the ramifications of a statement like this? I could argue this point ad infinitum!

But, for the sake of brevity, Jesus NEVER revoked the Old Testament laws (Matthew 5:17). Jesus also said that nothing He said could be deemed to trump the Father, which includes the words within the Old Testament commands and laws, for God rules over Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:3).

Besides, Luke 16:17 listed above supports the FACT that the laws of the Old Testament are to be followed. The candles upon the proverbial cake to follow the OT is; “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” ( Proverbs 30:5-6 ) Key words; “every word of God is pure”, which includes His word in the Old Testament. Case closed.

The “same sex” inference that you mentioned goes wanting because even though you’re arguing from silence, the New Testament which represents Jesus, did have an opinion upon this topics outcome in Romans 1;26-27,32. In other words, same sex marriages and their sex acts within, include individuals that are also to be put to death, so saith the inspired word of our God.

Again, it’s really hard in being a TRUE Christian that actually follows ALL of our God’s inspired word, but why shouldn’t we, do we know more than God’s word! NO! There lies the problem.


Thank you Ted (and moderator) for allowing this brief off-topic discussion. Ted, as a Deist in the “spirit” of quite a few of our founding fathers, I find that most discussions of Christianity usually seem to degenerate into a ” I’m right because I follow the true meaning of the Bible and you don’t” or a “Well, you believe in a “Sky-Being” who knows all, is all, and as so is really just a “cult”, meaning that you have “the” answer due to your faith, any facts either ignored or discounted. I enjoyed reading the booklet Thomas Jefferson wrote that is usually referred to as “The Jefferson Bible” where he took it upon himself to write up most of what is attributed to Jesus, but without the miracles trying to show what the man was trying to teach. Thank you for your time with this, believe me when I tell you that there is nothing you can say or do to try and “convert” me or educate me using Bible passages. Thanks again to the moderator for allowing this brief deviation from the usual on-topic commenting.

Ted Slanders


If one has to have a God concept, Deism is so pure and simple in it’s understanding and rational thought, that this is the concept to have. Kudos to you! Within our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, there is NO God concept mentioned, neither is Jesus mentioned in any way whatsover.

Some Christians were of course involved in the shaping of our nation, but their influence was minor compared to the ideological contributions of the Deists who pressed for the formation of a secular nation.

Even though the Jefferson Bible shows Jesus without His godly son of God position, or God incarnate attributes, in turn, it is logically frightening to read the TRUE attributes of Jesus in the Christian bible! I’ve shown some of these vile and disturbing entities within historical context that’ll curl your hair in previous posts!

The pseudo-christian isn’t aware of these facts because of their selective reading habits that are usually ordained from their pastors, priests, et al, and that are usually spoon fed to them on Sunday mornings. (Sabbath day is actually Saturday)

NO, I do not want you to ever convert from your pure form of Deism. If it was good enough for the views held by our founding fathers of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and James Monroe, along with the most vociferous Americans following the Deist concept of Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine, then you’re in great company!

Of course your Deist belief allows you to completely understand that our nation was NOT built upon Christianity in any way or form in the beginning. Only subsequently did Christianity enter into our nation with some disgusting results that we’re still paying for today. :(


Ignore him, and he will go away.


I’m not positive, but my recall was that adultery was a one way street for a man. It was only qualified as such if he violated another man’s wife, not his daughter. In that case i think he was required to pay a dowry (a second wife?) for seducing a virgin.

Not to mention that these laws were part of the first covenant between God and the nation of Israel, meaning any person who agreed to be apart of that covenant. It doesn’t apply to people who want to live wild and free as a heathen, among the heathen.


I find it troubling that TedSlanders continually, in various forums, on various threads and topics, cites excerpts from the Bible as justification for killing people. Where will this obsession with ‘justifiable killing” lead to?

Jack L

Unless this LEO was ready to go kill someone, it appears it was not handled very well. The proof is the ‘suspect’ is dead. The story will get filled in to meet the legal means and justify the death.


I’m just stunned at how unprofessional & poorly trained law enforcement is here on the Central Coast…Where do they find their “recruits”? Sounds as though they need better qualified “screeners” for the applicants. I have NEVER seen such poorly trained people & that goes from the top down. An investigation is in order…The shooting was totally unjustified & could have been handled better if all involved had the proper training. Don’t these officers go anywhere for “ADVANCED TRAINING”? The widow should call James McKiernan Law firm & sue all involved…

Ted Slanders

Seriously, RU4Real? In this particular incident, when “isn’t” a shooting justified when you’re being shot at first?!


proof this man shot first. Is this shooting on video? we know one lies the other swears

to it. The court system is filled with he said she said In between is the truth. Cold blood murder on the streets of Santa Maria. No excuse for this action. this should have been handled more professional.


As I posted in another folder, good cops, who have options, tend to avoid small towns where the head of the LE agency’s officers is inept or otherwise unsupportive of the officers, where it is a high-crime area and there have been multiple officer shootings, where there is little chance of advancement, where the agency’s officers have morality issues (like molesting minors, multiple divorces, affairs within the department, problems with brutality, etc.), or where the pay is poor, where the police are not supported by the local government that employs them, etc.


Unless the LEO was ready to kill someone??

Do you think they are ever ready to kill someone? You deal with situations like this in a split second. You don’t have time to think, “gee I wonder if I need to kill him or not”.



Monday morning quarterbacking is just great… The article says the investigation was for sexual relations witha minor AND intimidating a witness. These are both serious charges. My question would be why was he not put on administrative leave during the investigation? How many times have we seen these officers get paid for extended periods during the investigation. I then knowing all this the SMPD puts him on a DUI checkpoint.

I think we can all expect to see more of these types of incidents as we have a President who wants are returning military put into law enforcement. The dealings in Iraq, etc. is not the same in U.S.A.

Very sad story and my condolences goes to the family and the Santa Maria Police Department. Very sad day.


Well here is a possible reason to not put on admin. leave. You usually put on leave when an officer having shot a suspect, is put on desk. Which I bet the officer who shot him will be. The officer accused of the relations with a minor would not be put on desk leave, because this is not an admin. problem. This was a VIOLATION of the LAW. BIG DIFFERENCE. I’m sure the officer if not killed would be like the rest of us. Arrested, arraigned and if warrented have bail set.


It isn’t indicated whether this was a consensual relationship with the “then 17” year old. I guess I am confused; we regularly try teenagers, as young as 13, as adults for violent crimes, but don’t feel a 17 year old is old enough to decide with whom she/they choose to be intimate. Certainly there must be more to this story, it’s hard to accept that all this extreme behavior and a death occurred because a young woman chose an older man.


A person who is not 18 cannot legally give consent to have sex. That is the law. The officer who had sex with a 17-year-old knew that law, yet willfully broke it.

If persons less than 18 years old willingly have sexual relations with each other, and are legally able to give consent (i.e., the female isn’t passed out from a rufie), that is not illegal.

So you think a 17-year-old is fair game for a 29-year-old cop, who is the one with the majority of the power in the power gradient between the two of them.

How about a 16-year-old? 15? how about 9?

YOU, nor the pervert 29-year-old cop who had sex with a 17-year-old, cannot decide on your own that a law can be broken, just because you think it isn’t right or because the cop has a hard-on.

Honest to god, where do these neanderthals come from?


A number of comments deleted, be on topic please, more focus on the story less emphasis on your opinion of others.


I may be a little out of date on the following, and would welcome anyone in the know to correct me.

I have always believed that if a public employee committed a serious crime, fraud, or sexual harrassment, the agency can dis-own them and deny all former entitled benefits.

The deceased officer “knew of the impending warrant of arrest-guessing it is his wife” if the primary player of that warrant happens to be his wife, now that he is dead, she could be denied all widow’s benefit and pension.

In simularity, if Lisa Soloman is found to have committed sexual harrassment, the agency / city can deny her all benefits including pension.


No just trying to find the words to form, to keep my head from spinning around, as to WHY someone would make your origianal post, in seeming that what the cop did was some how o.k. Just posting replies.


Over a hundred years of constitutional law reasons that a pension benefit is a property right. Lots of opinions including the current voter initative to change the pensions for current employees but to do that would change the court reasoning of it being a property right. So the paso chief would be eligible for her property right she gets it. It will be intresting to see with the deceased officer’s family apply and the end result!



Welcome to the world of the baffled.

My post” I have always believed (over 30 years) that if a public employee committed a serious crime, fraud, or sexual harrassment, the agency can dis-own them and deny all former entitled benefits.

Thank you for sharing the info


Willie, as much as I try to refrain from responding to your comments most of the time, you have gone over the top, again. “I do not call a 17 year old girl a “child” and haven’t seen any other information regarding specific knowledge or assumption of the girl’s age.” Do you have a daughter, Willie? I do, she is now 30 years old and I know that most 17 year old girls are pretty much “adult” in their appearance, some a lot more so than others, but the law is the law; a 17 year old is not an adult, legally, period, hence she is technically a child, a young adult, a minor.


Yes she is a minor by law.

I usually think of a “child” as age 12 and under to a common person.

And yes I do, you are not the only in the world one that has a daughter.

Admittedly you are technically more correct than I want to be.

Sorry if I offended anyone.


Though oddly free to abort a child/pregnancy without informing parents.


Illogical statement.

The issue is having sexual relations. Abortions are not considered sexual relations. Abortions are, for better category, health-care or reproductive-rights-care issues.


Willie, as much as I try to refrain from responding to your comments most of the time, you have gone over the top, again.

Try to not waste you time upgrading anyone up to your standard, for you do not do it for anyone’s sake, you do it just for your own sake. Someone more to your polish level would be a University Professor of English (like Adam Hill)

But more to topic, I “trust” that SMPD is responsible enough to take whatever action they deem is necessary.

With nephews and neices who are attorneys in different states who have shared info with me about statutory rape laws, I view things a little more liberal. There was one case my neice handled: A truck driver took an underage girl and had a sexual relation, the girl’s grandmother reported the crime to the police and the driver was arrested. In court he admitted having a sexual relationship with the girl. the courts discovered they were out of the state of Nevada when the affair occurred. The judge acquitted the charges against the man and that is the law.

The deceased officer was charged but not convicted, there has to be more to this causing his deluded actions.


Opps story incomplete: The above driver was 26 years old, I forgot the minor’s age I think it was 16, the grandmother (a realtor) is 64 years old and married but separated from him (the driver), the was fathered by the son of the previous marriage. The only evidence of sex with a minor was the grandmother’s allegation and the driver’s own admission. When the law (and police, DA, defense, and judge) were all finished he was acquitted.

There are all sorts of bazaar statutory rape cases but I never anyone flipping out like the deceased officer.



“Willie, as much as I try to refrain from responding to your comments most of the time, you have gone over the top, again. ”

Here is my hopeful last comment to you on the issues here including this post:

The media have “Freedom of the press” and “Other people” “different people” have the “Freedom of expressing their opinions “RIGHT OR WRONG!

I would appreciate it if you continue to spare me from your polished cut down, it reminds me too much of Professor Adam Hill’s style.

You may want to think about not boxing yourself to the opinionated speculations of others who could be “RIGHT OR WRONG!

Or you can buy out CCN and throw out past, present and future post of “other people”, “different types of people” “different level of people” you dislike.


And bobfromsanluis has freedom of speech, too.

And the world goes around and around…


If ranking officers failed to administratively call him in and asked him to surrender his badge and firearm pending an investigation, then the officials are open to some critism.

But if they did and he refused, then they know they are dealing with a mental and emotional case and possibly other criminal factors that we will probably never know of unless his wife goes public.

I also can’t help but to sense that the arresting officers were ready for what he did.


I do not call a 17 year old girl a “child” and haven’t seen any other information regarding specific knowledge or assumption of the girl’s age.

But to struggle with arresting officers, draw and shoot his firearm at uniformed officers was the most striking thing to me, this is the primary thing that baffles me and why I believe there is more than mere statutory crime of consensual sex with an almost 18 year old child woman.

Whatever it is, if it can embarass the department further, we will never learn of it.


REALLY Willie? Child woman? Let’s cut to the chase. The way things are now (law) is that it IS STATUTORY rape PERIOD!!! Second and MOST important is the guy is a COP AND KNOWS THE LAW!!! Game over nothing left to say and no other way to spin it to make it seem normal.


The way the whole “episode” was handled sounds like it was not following proper protocol…


Ru4real, yea they may not have followed protocol but my point was/is that the cop broke the law.