Witness says man fatally shot by Lompoc police was lying on ground

November 23, 2016
Michael Ducaine Giles

Michael Ducaine Giles

A woman who claims to have witnessed Monday’s fatal shooting in Lompoc says the man who was shot and killed was lying on the ground when an officer opened fire on him. The alleged witness also disputes the Lompoc Police Department’s claim that the deceased man was confronting officers with a knife at the time of the shooting.

Following the shooting, Lompoc police said officers chased an apparently intoxicated man out of a laundromat and across a street, where he hid in shrubs between a walking path and a hotel. The man, 27-year-old Michael Ducaine Giles, confronted officers with a knife, and that resulted in him being shot, a police department press release stated.

However, a 23-year-old woman told the Lompoc Record that Giles was lying on the ground and was not involved in a confrontation when he was shot twice by an approaching officer who was about 10 feet away. The woman said she witnessed the shooting from a distance of a couple dozen feet.

She said she never saw Giles in possession of a knife or any other weapon while the man was running across North H Street or when he was hiding behind a bush. The woman said the image of Giles raising one of his blood-soak arms is seared into her memory.

The alleged witness only speaks Spanish, and she spoke to the press via her sister’s translation. The woman asked to remain anonymous because she feared for her safety, and she said she has had trouble sleeping and has felt overly anxious and nervous since the shooting.

Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s detectives, who are handling the death investigation, interviewed the alleged witness. Sheriff’s officials declined to corroborate her story, refusing to give comment other than saying it is routine to seek statements from witnesses.

The police department has not discussed several details of the shooting, including how many shots were fired and whether the officer first used less lethal munition. A police spokesperson has said there were four officers at the scene but only one fired his weapon.

Police officials have identified the officer who shot Giles as Corporal Charles Scott, a four-year veteran of the Lompoc force.

Several of Giles’ relatives stood outside the Lompoc police station Monday night, expressing anger and frustration. Some of the relatives said they believed Giles’ death was a murder.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Give me a break. It’s not a matter of opinion. Report the facts. Report the forensic evidence.

Was a knife recovered? Were the bullet entry wounds on the back? Do the trajectory angles indicate the guy was on the ground?

Why would a cop shoot an unarmed guy lying on the ground? Just having a bad day and tired of dealing with mental deranged people?

Expect much more of this under the Trump regime.

“To Serve and Protect” …themselves

Every cop needs to wear a body camera. Plain and simple. I think it keeps things transparent, less confusion. It protects the officer and the potential suspect.

That’s fine, until they jack with the video or pretend it “wasn’t working” when a critical incident happens. Police cannot be trusted when their own interests are threatened.

Isn’t there some sort of a “graduating system of force” used in a case like this? Where a verbal order is given, then another, then a non-lethal method used (stun gun, pepper spray, etc.) and as a last resort lethal force is used? No? I know there was a knife involved, or at least was in the hands of the person, but it’s not like it can shoot you or be used against you from a distance (I guess folks like Daniel Boone or Jim Bowie would contest that notion).

I will again defer to my own experiences: While in prison I have seen “less than lethal force” used time-and-time again and not one time did I see it fail (I guess that’s subjective as hell, as one person failure might be another’s success or vise-versa). What CDC did was use “overwhelming force” with highly trained members of what we so fondly called the “Goon Squad”; they would go into a cell body armored up, with batons and shields and subdue the person, some of which were armed with knives. They’d would first tell the person what they wanted him to do, if he didn’t comply they would again tell him what they wanted and add that they would use pepper spray if he didn’t, then they would use pepper spray if he didn’t and if he still didn’t comply they would literally “storm” the cell and take him down! Why couldn’t something like this be protocol with law enforcement on our streets?

I just get confused about s**t like this; in prison, the place where those who are convicted and sentenced are far more protected (at least on paper) to the use and or abuse of lethal force than an accused or suspected person on the streets? Jeeeeez…. Thank god that president-elect trump will put more cops on the streets to protect us from s**t like this….

Thanks for sharing but, the “graduating system of force” would get EVERYONE killed if not seriously maimed for life.

Imagine a drunk man (let’s use Daniel Boone as an example) charges YOU with a knife. You’ll need to exert greater force to suppress that knife attack, right?

So you pump a beanbag or two into him and discover….wow…that didn’t seem to phase him except that NOW he’s on top of you and you’ve learned the hard way about the use of force!

If you charge at the police with a knife you will likely die. Seems easy enough to grasp.

In “Prison” goon squads, are only a building away. In prison the possession of a firearm is extremely rare. In prison, backup of a dozen or so officers are only moments away.

On the street, swat teams are typically 30 minutes or more away. On the street, possession of a firearm are more common than not. On the street, backup is limited to three or four officers for this first 15/30 minutes.

You ask why can’t the cops act like the guards, quite simply because, they do not have the luxury of knowing for a fact that the suspect is not going anywhere, that they will be right there until the goon squad is ready to “storm” the cell, that the dirt bag probably (99.999% of the time) has no firearm unlike on the street and that the guards have 15/20 backup officers ready within two minutes. Life in prison can not be compared to life on the street.

topper01 & Stunned…

First off Stunned… The article said he “confronted” the police with a knife NOT “charged” one with one… So, using your own words your point is mute.

Second off topper01… I’m one of those “dirt bags” you speak of so walk lightly there, please… When did a “gun” enter the conversation? Is there one mentioned in the article? If so, please show me where. Are you saying that just because this “dirt bag” had a knife he surely had a gun to go along with it? And that justifies shooting the guy while he lays on the ground? I sure hope you’re not a cop or planning on becoming one.

You are right, correctional personal do have the advantage of knowing the “dirt bag” is not likely to have a gun or is going anywhere but ask them if that is of any comfort knowing they may have a knife (shank), have cups full of feces and urine, a mouthful of spit that may contain pathogens and other ills that may contaminate or infect them. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some would rather face a gun (one bullet one guy, a cup full of human waste can cover a lot of folks….)

The article also states that the “4 officers”, plural, were confronted by the “dirt bag”; so “backup” was already there, right? Or at least four (4) officers, right? Why is it multiple officers couldn’t contain this guy without killing him? I have suggestion, one that police officers and sheriff deputies have told me on more than one occasion; you’re much better off killing a person than having one come back to testify against you! Probably even more fitting for law enforcement, don’t ya think?

Next time the both of you should stick with what’s in print rather than the absolute fear mongering folks like you like to spread so others can live in your fear.

Oh, one other thing there topper01… Here’s a little tidbit you should be aware of next time you want to argue about back-up and response times:

1) FBI LEOKA reports shows that an average of 66 percent of officers who were murdered while on duty were killed while other officers were present.

2) The average response time in the US is seven (7) minutes. If Lompoc is taking the “15/30 minutes” you contend they should really take a look at what they’re doing wrong.

Have a Great Day,


Dirt Bag!

I believe nobody if they remain anonymous. If it is so traumatic then you need to come forward. It is just speculation if you hide.

This poor girl is traumatized. She also doesn’t speak English which (contemplating the current excess paranoia going on lately) may further explain her reasons for withholding her name. But, she WAS there, and DID see what happened. I believe her. Understanding her circumstances, and her personal beliefs in what might equate to retaliation in her eyes, she is quite brave. I see that she stepped up to do the right thing. I just don’t see that she would put herself in possible harms way (in her eyes) to lie.

I have the utmost respect for our officers in Blue. But this could have been an overreaction from a fairly Newbie officer. Four years is hardly a veteran.

” she WAS there, and DID see what happened. I believe her” is not a fact that she was there, only your opinion. The fact that you believe her is not a fact that it is true. You sound like the modern day news media where if they belive it is so, then it has to be true.

She did come forward and talk to the police, she’s not required to share information with curious onlookers who don’t factor into the equation, and it seems she has already provided more information than the police have.

In addition, I guess you don’t understand anything about having suffered a traumatic experience and would not give credibility to say for example rape victims who remain silent for years before they find the courage to come forward.

Your right that i have not been raped. But we all have had what we feel is a traumatic experience. Don’t assume anything shudacuda about anyones past. I did not say she was wrong. I said “don’t remain anonymous” since anyone can say anything hiding behind anonymity. Don’t read past what was actually stated.

Actually what you said was ” I believe nobody if they remain anonymous.” Yes, anyone can say anything behind anonymity and if you watched the elections you also have to agree that one does not have to be anonymous to be shall we say…. less than credible.

You lost me there… how did you get on the elections? I was paraphrasing my thought’s intent, stop the correction policing.