aug-support
help-us-raise
donate-buttonOlimometer 2.47

    A San Diego police officer’s killing of an unarmed, mentally ill man in April was unprovoked, according to a sworn statement from someone who has viewed security camera footage of the incident.

    On April 30, San Diego police officer Neal Browder shot and killed Fridoon Rawshan Nehad in an alley outside an adult bookstore in the Midway neighborhood. Browder was responding to a 911 call about a man who was threatening people with a knife. Nehad turned out to be unarmed.

    Browder failed to turn on his body-worn camera before the incident, prompting Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman to change department policy to ensure cameras are activated prior to officers encountering a potential criminal incident. But a security camera from a nearby boat equipment business captured the shooting.

    In a sworn statement filed in federal court, Wesley Doyle, an employee of KECO, said he watched the footage at least 20 times. Doyle said Browder did not have his emergency lights turned on when he arrived, got out of his car and took a relaxed stance toward Nehad. Then, when Nehad was about 15 feet away, Browder raised his weapon and shot Nehad in the chest.


    Help Us Raise $50,000 by Aug 28

     Learn more about member benefits

    The video, Doyle said in the statement, “was shocking to me and, I believe, to anyone else who sees it. From what I recall, Officer Browder did not make any physical movement in an attempt to communicate with Fridoon, i.e., raise his hand indicating to stop. And Officer Browder did not use any other measures, such as a Taser, against Fridoon. He did not even get into a shooting stance. The shooting appeared to be unprovoked; Officer Browder appeared to shoot Fridoon hastily.”

    Doyle said in the statement that Nehad slowed his pace toward Browder before the shooting and that Nehad appeared to come to a complete stop before Browder pulled the trigger. The video did not record any sound.

    In an interview with Voice of San Diego, Doyle said that the video shows that the shooting was unjustified.

    “When you see the video, it’s obvious he was not doing anything threatening,” Doyle said.

    San Diego police have completed their criminal investigation into Nehad’s death and the case is under review by District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, a DA spokesman said.

    The shooting – and the video – were instantly controversial.

    According to a footage witness, an SDPD officer's killing of an unarmed, mentally ill man in April was unprovoked.

    The San Diego Police Department has had the security camera footage since the aftermath of the shooting, and has refused to release it publicly despite public records requests, calls for transparency from interest groups and protests. Like body camera footage, the department is treating the security camera video as evidence and reasons it is therefore exempt from disclosure under state law. SDPD didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    “There’s a good reason why they don’t want this video to come out,” Doyle said. “It makes them look really bad.”

    Days after first viewing the tape, Doyle said he contacted the offices of Mayor Kevin Faulconer, City Councilwoman Marti Emerald, who leads the Council’s public safety committee, and Rep. Scott Peters to tell them that the video of the shooting was disturbing.

    No one called him back, Doyle said, but instead two SDPD homicide detectives visited him unannounced at work to interview him about the tape. Representatives for Faulconer, Emerald and Peters did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Doyle said the detectives were aggressive and intimidating.

    “Why are they interviewing a guy who saw a video when they themselves have the video?” Doyle said.

    Nehad’s family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court against the city. In a filing in the case, the city defends Browder’s actions as justified after Nehad threatened Browder with a metallic pen that looked like a knife:

    Nehad “emerged from the shadows of an alley near the bookstore and headed directly for Officer Browder; Plaintiffs’ Decedent brandished a metallic pen that appeared to be a knife; by the time Officer Browder was able to react to the actions of Plaintiff’s Decedent by getting out of the car, yelling at Plaintiffs’ Decedent to drop ‘it’ or ‘the knife,’ and drawing his sidearm, Plaintiffs’ Decedent had closed the substantial distance between himself and Officer Browder to between 10 and 15 feet; and immediately upon drawing his sidearm, Officer Browder fired, hitting Plaintiffs’ Decedent once in the chest,” according to the filing.

    Doyle’s statement contradicts the city’s version of events in that Doyle says Nehad was moving much slower toward Browder than the city’s account implies – and might have even been stopped completely.

    Nehad, who was born in Afghanistan, had a lengthy history of mental illness, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, according to the lawsuit. He also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from experiences in the Afghan army during that country’s civil war, the lawsuit said.

    Nehad, who was 42 at the time of his death, had been jailed for burglary and convicted of battery and petty theft. Immigration officials declined to comment on Nehad’s legal status to NBC San Diego in May, but suggested he was facing deportation. His mother had filed a restraining order against him days before his death. In the lawsuit, Nehad’s family said they believed a restraining order would help Nehad get into a shelter.

    Doyle’s statement was filed by attorneys for Nehad’s family in the lawsuit. The security camera video has been sealed as part of the case.

      This article relates to: Must Reads, Police, Public Safety

      Written by Liam Dillon

      Liam Dillon is senior reporter and assistant editor for Voice of San Diego. He leads VOSD’s investigations and writes about how regular people interact with local government. What should he write about next? Please contact him directly at liam.dillon@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5663.

      13 comments
      Richard Gardiol
      Richard Gardiol

      Bonnie Dumanis is going to personally rule on the merits in this case.  If you don't trust her, then you shouldn't have voted for her.

      Bit-watcher
      Bit-watcher subscriber

      What's the rush to try this case in the court of public opinion? That's been bad from OJ and before to Ferguson and Baltimore. What makes newspapers so trustworthy, when they also withhold information or give slanted coverage? Remember, they're in it only for the money (circulation numbers), and have as bad a history with truth as others.

      Yellow journalism is still alive and well, despite the passing of WR Hearst and his ilk.

      Jake Vogelsang
      Jake Vogelsang subscriber

      I don't understand why the camera footage would be withheld even if considered "evidence". It's a video not an eye witness account but a video that shows exactly what actions took place. Why shouldn't this be available? If the police have a legitimate reason for withholding it then why not tell us what that reason is? Stating that it's evidence and withholding it is only going to inspire conspiracy theory's and stinks of guilt. Treating the public like we are too dumb to understand doesn't inspire a lot of trust in the SDPD.

      The notion that we have, as taxpayers, investment in body cameras to avoid just this type of controversy and to protect the public and the police both yet officers can simply chose not to use them? Absurd, there should be discipline for that alone. How did the department not have a policy in place about use of cameras at all times previous to this? More self made loopholes to protect the police?

      Look at what has happened after the shooting. A local citizen comes forward with video footage that provides some of the only real available evidence beyond the word of the officer. He turns over said footage to the authorities only to have it buried by the police and the public gets stonewalled. The citizen reaches out to the powers that be in city government and law enforcement and aside from being totally ignored by those he tried to contact directly the only response he gets to his concerns is an "intimidating" interview conducted by the department that is being investigated. It's easy to see why people don't trust this investigation or the police in general.

      The lesson I get from this is that if you are in possession of video evidence, make copies and distribute to the media before you go to the police with it. It's the ONLY way to guarantee that a public record will be made and to protect yourself from police intimidation.

      This is shameful especially from a police chief who has talked constantly about transparency and community relations. Given the opportunity to prove this to the community this is the transparency we can expect.

      I don't know enough about the incident to determine if the shooting was justified but I do know enough about the subsequent investigation to know that transparency with the public is not a priority for the SDPD.

      I have to wonder if the situation were different and this was one citizen shooting another if the video would be buried under the protection of evidence?

      richard brick
      richard brick subscribermember

      " Stop resisting", "I was in fear for my life", "He went for my gun". Part of the training. How do we know that the SDPD shooter didn't have his camera on? When this shooting took place one of the first things that the SDPD said was the shooter didn't have his camera on. It was after this shooting that SDPD came out with a new directive about cameras. 


      Don't fear as we all know cops never lie and never lie on their reports!


      When will we have a civilian oversight with power to investigate the police? As we all know when the police investigate themselves the investigation is always honest and truthful.

      DavidM
      DavidM subscriber

      @richard brick And here, where a witness who saw the video came forward to the civilian political leadership of the City what happened?  He was interviewed by two homicide detectives AFTER SDPD already had the video!


      And Bonnie Dumanis, who has never found a shooting unjustified, has the completed report and sits on her hands.

      Michael Robertson
      Michael Robertson subscribermember

      I suggest reserving judgement until we see the video. Ferguson should have reminded us that eyewitness reports are highly unreliable. 

      DavidM
      DavidM subscriber

      @Michael Robertson Which is a compelling argument for having Chief Zimmerman allow news organizations to publish the video

      Greg Chick
      Greg Chick subscriber

      What if an attorney not connected to this case takes this situation and demands to see the footage and as a citizen pursues justice? 

      DavidM
      DavidM subscriber

      @Greg Chick The result would be no difference.  Chief Zimmerman has determined that the evidence cannot be viewed by the public, and just because the public who asks is an attorney would make no difference.  An individual attorney not working for someone connected to the case would also not have standing to "pursue justice."

      Matty Azure
      Matty Azure subscriber

      Dear Officer Neal Browder,

      Welcome to our club.

      Signed,

      Officer Michael Slager

      rhylton
      rhylton subscriber

      This is quite unsurprising.  Sometime ago at the dawn of the body-cam age, Zimmerman while denying general transparency with respect to body-cam footage, said that she would release same if we had a Ferguson-like situation here. In other words, footage would be released if we had impending unrest where video evidence would prove that there had been a "good" shooting.


      Withholding the footage foreshadowed what you have now disclosed; the shooting was a "bad" shooting.





      Ducraker
      Ducraker subscriber

      Thank you Citizen Doyle for having the where-with-all to step forward as a concerned citizen SHOULD. Hopefully this will be a message to SDPD that the community is watching whether or not the Patrolman has his video camera on.