By Steve Pomper
In March 2018, I wrote an article that appeared at OpsLens about a rookie San Francisco P.D. officer, Christopher Samayoa. The city fired him after he was involved in an officer involved shooting in 2017. Getting terminated for doing his job was bad enough. However, three years after being wrongly fired, just a few weeks from Christmas, it got worse. Samayoa, is now about to be wrongly prosecuted for manslaughter, cruelly, only days before the statute of limitations was about to run out.
Why? Primarily because the radical George Soros-funded San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin wants to. He’s got himself, to borrow from his like-minded comrades, a “pig in a blanket,” and now he wants to “fry ‘im like bacon.”
Unfortunately, this does not surprise the San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA). As I wrote at National Police Association (NPA), about San Francisco DA candidate Boudin, the union had posted a simple warning not to vote for the activist attorney: “Chesa Boudin Shouldn’t Be District Attorney.” Unfortunately, Soros’ money was apparently enough to push him over the finish line after a tight race (wait… what voting machine does San Francisco use?).
Anyway, the City by the Bay’s electorate chose a radical defense attorney, who’d reportedly never prosecuted a single criminal, to run the prosecutor’s office. As noted in that NPA article, Boudin was raised by President Obama’s friends, the unrepentant radical terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn. That was because Boudin’s parents were in prison for their roles in “murdering two police officers.”
Now, while it’s not fair to judge any offspring by their parent’s actions, Boudin did plenty on his own to bolster his radical credentials. For example, Monica Showalter at American Thinker reported Boudin was, “Cuba-groomed from the start” and a “trusted propagandist, translator, and advisor….” For whom? His first job, fresh from Yale and Oxford, was working for Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez.
So, it’s also no surprise that, according to Rachel Swan of the San Francisco Chronicle, as reprinted at Police1, points out this is “the first time in modern history that the city’s top prosecutor has charged a police officer with homicide in a use-of-force case.” For Boudin, that is likely a huge feather in his Ché beret.
During an interview about the charges, I wonder if Boudin’s nose grew as he said, “I’m committed to equal enforcement of the law….” Any officer in the SFPD can tell you about how “equal” enforcement of the law has been since Boudin’s been DA. After all, he came into office with a preconceived mission not to enforce laws—equal or otherwise.
During the campaign, Boudin completed an ACLU candidate questionnaire, answering one question, “Crimes such as public camping [on sidewalks], offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc. should not and will not be prosecuted.” Boudin considers these “quality-of-life-crimes.” I guess we know whose quality of life he cares about most.
His nose likely grew even longer when he said, “while he seeks to hold law enforcement officers just as accountable as civil defendants, his commitment to ‘not overcharge’ extends to police officers.” Well, if a prosecutor feels compelled to state something that should be so obvious for a DA, how much does he truly believe it?
There was a time when law enforcement officers worked with prosecutors to put criminals away. Now, blue state/city criminal justice systems have mutated. Now, only the cops represent the law-abiding people and crime victims. It’s only the police up against leftist prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and we’ll toss in the media, on the side of the criminals.
So, let’s explore a bit about Officer Samayoa and what happened on that chaotic day. As the then-president of the SFPOA, Marty Halloran, SFPOA president, at the time of the firing, wrote to his membership about the accused cop, “Officer Chris Samayoa is a textbook example of what a police officer should be.” [bold Halloran’s]
Halloran went on to describe Samayoa as “an exemplary human being.” He said he was a native-born San Franciscan with a Psychology degree from the U. of Arizona. Samayoa was dedicated to becoming a San Francisco police officer. In fact, he took a leave of absence from pursuing his master’s degree at the U. of San Francisco, to accept a job offer to attend the police academy to become a SFPD officer. He is bilingual and has a history of working with foster youth and homeless families. He’d also volunteered for Habitat for Humanity.
About the incident, Halloran, who had more details than I did, also stated, “Chris was fired for doing what he was trained to do by the SFPD Academy, and for what happened on his fourth day on the job under extremely stressful and difficult circumstances.”
Halloran wrote, “Let’s not forget that the suspect, who was on parole for armed robbery, who had a violent criminal history record, and his accomplices attempted an armed robbery at a corner store on Potrero Hill; carjacked a Lottery vehicle; assaulted a female state employee, who had to seek medical attention; and then led officers on a reckless high-speed pursuit to a dead-end in Double Rock, where he bailed out and charged directly at the officer.”
As Halloran writes, after O’Neil had stopped the vehicle, he allegedly got out and charged toward the patrol car. As he arrived in proximity to Samayoa’s car window, the officer fired at O’Neil, striking him. The suspect was later pronounced dead. As I originally wrote, “What, exactly, did the officer do wrong?”
Again, from Halloran, “Think about it. If that suspect had been armed with a firearm, and Officer Samayoa hadn’t drawn his weapon and fired, both he and his training officer could have been wounded or killed. From the video, the training officer had no shot from the driver’s seat without a great risk of shooting his partner. Both Samayoa and his training officer were depending on the rookie’s proper and quick decision to stop the threat.”
In these instances, so alien to non-cops, people should try to put themselves in the officer’s position, rather than allowing a casual minds-eye-review to sterilize what is a situation infected with chaos.
It’s not normal, after having fled from pursuing police officers, to get out of your car and to run at the officers’ car. Running away is much more “normal.” So, if a suspect, who’s just reportedly violently car-jacked a woman and had been chased by police officers, gets out and runs at those police officers, certain things go through a cop’s mind. Such as, is that suspect armed with a gun or other weapon? Is he going to assault me and try to take my gun? He isn’t surrendering. So, is he just in a hurry to tell you he’s decided to turn his life around, and he couldn’t wait to give you a full confession?
In the story, Rachel Swan writes, “Police said O’Neil was unarmed.” So what? Only after the incident can that be determined. Was Officer Samayoa supposed to bet his life that O’Neil, a suspected car-jacker, wasn’t armed as he was rushing at him? As Samayoa’s lawyer said, “the officer ‘did precisely what the San Francisco Police Department trained him to do.’”
Exactly why was the officer supposed to act as if the suspect was unarmed when he charged at the patrol car? Because the dispatcher had reported the victim said the suspect hadn’t displayed a gun? That may be good enough for you, but it wouldn’t have been good enough for me. I was taught, I don’t know a suspect is unarmed until he or she has been searched. Period! Only O’Neil knew he was unarmed.
It’s easy to criticize Samayoa but ask yourself what were the reasonable alternatives that existed in those few seconds? What could the officer have done that wouldn’t have risked his and his FTO’s life? Why is it always the cop’s fault when officers must use force? The suspect’s criminal actions brought this down on himself. Could the officer have made a different decision? Sure. Would I have made a different decision, or would you have? Again, maybe. But that’s not the point.
That specific officer reacted to what confronted him in that specific moment. He perceived the incident from a seated position within his patrol car as a violent felon was charging at him, following a harrowing pursuit. The officer had to make his decision based on his perceptions, and he made that decision. He didn’t shoot wildly, putting his FTO or potential bystanders in jeopardy. Best of all, he didn’t do nothing, which could have put him and his FTO in grave danger.
Do I know for certain this is how it all happened? No, I have to base my opinion on what I’ve researched, read, and from my experiences in similar circumstances. Could I read new information tomorrow that would change my perspective? Of course, but that’s not the point is it? We can only comment based on what we do know based on research. Regardless, this story is as much about an anti-cop prosecutor as it is about an officer whom it appears has been wrongly charged in the death an alleged violent carjacking, not alleged paroled felon.
The DA, who’s finally found a “crime” he wants to prosecute, feels he can get a manslaughter conviction. But he also said, “the door isn’t closed on a murder charge.” It is unconscionable but not surprising that DA Boudin has placed this young man in his radical crosshairs. Sending a cop to prison for doing his job will only make other cops hesitate to do their jobs in similar circumstances. But isn’t that exactly what DAs like him across the nation intend?
Boudin and his comrades will continue to chip away at officer and public safety until they are non-existent. They’ll do it until it gets to the point no officers will trust they can use any force at any time against any suspect for any crime for which DAs like Boudin will not attempt to prosecute them.