Deputy Says He Shot 'Irrational' Marine to Protect Kids in Car

15-year veteran of Sheriff's Department says Sgt. Manny Loggins was about to drive away, so he opened fire to prevent a perceived danger to Loggins' daughters. One other deputy was nearby at the time.

The deputy who shot and killed an unarmed Marine sergeant after a predawn traffic stop said the Marine was acting so "irrationally" that it seemed dangerous to let him drive away with his two daughters, an official said Friday.

So when the Marine -- later identified as Sgt. Manny Loggins Jr. of Camp Pendleton -- climbed back into his GMC Yukon and turned the ignition, the deputy opened fire, according to Jim Amormino, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Amormino stressed that he was merely relaying statements made by the deputy to investigators and "not defending" what happened.

"This was a very tragic event, we all feel bad for the family," Amormino said.

The deputy, a 15-year veteran, told investigators he was parked at San Clemente High School writing reports when he spotted Loggins driving "at a high rate of speed" before turning into the lot and crashing into a gate near the football field.

The deputy pulled up behind Loggins and radioed for backup. It was about 4:40 a.m. Tuesday.

Loggins, 31, stepped out of the Yukon and walked off into the darkness toward the football field, ignoring a series of commands made by the deputy. His two daughters, ages 9 and 14, remained in the vehicle.

Other deputies soon arrived and formed a perimeter around the back end of the football field in case Loggins was trying to flee, Amormino said. Because it was dark, nobody could see where Loggins was.

"About five minutes later, Loggins walked back toward the Yukon," Amormino said.

The deputy issued "a new set of commands" which Loggins again didn't follow, Amormino said.

"Due to Loggins' failure to follow the commands and his irrational behavior, including statements he made, the deputy had a deep concern for the safety of the children," Amormino said. "In the deputy's mind, it was unsafe for [Loggins] to drive away with the girls."

Amormino said he couldn't disclose what the alleged "irrational" behaviors or statements entailed, but said Loggins didn't appear to be intoxicated.

When Loggins got back into the Yukon and either started the engine or began trying to drive away, the deputy opened fire, shooting Loggins through the driver side window, which shattered. (The girls were in the back seat and not injured.)

Amormino acknowledged that this version of events differs from , in which the deputy reportedly opened fire because he feared for his own life.

"The real threat was for the lives of the children," Amormino said Friday. In a case like this, "some information becomes immediately available and some takes longer to get because witnesses have to be interviewed," he noted.

Amormino said this account came from the deputy who fired the shots. Another deputy was nearby, but "I don't know what he saw," Amormino said.

Loggins' daughters were also interviewed by investigators, but Amormino said he didn't know what they said or if their story lined up with the deputy's.

In addition, KABC-TV said the incident was taped on the deputy's dashboard video camera.

"Whatever the truth is will come out," Amormino said, noting that "a complete and thorough investigation" would be conducted by the Orange County District Attorney's office, which investigates all officer-involved shootings.

Results of the autopsy on Loggins probably won't be made public for a few weeks, after toxicology tests are finished and the sheriff reviews the findings, he said.

, describing the Illinois native as a kind and faith-filled Christian family man who would never disobey authorities or jeopardize the safety of his daughters.

Feb. 14 UPDATE: Deputies union issues a statement defending the shooting. .

Connie Miller February 21, 2012 at 06:10 AM
I hope it's in the millions - four children to provide a home for, to raise and educate.
Connie Miller February 21, 2012 at 06:20 AM
James, I am quite concerned that the daughters were taken to the station and their testimony was taken, My concern Is that the sheriff's office might have influenced their testimony. I wonder if any child advocate or legal representation (other than police) was avail able to protect and support the girls.
Connie Miller February 21, 2012 at 06:59 AM
JB, every individual who knew Manny asserts that he was stable, calm, reliable and above all respectful to all and meticulous about orders. That is their testimony, their personal experience with him. To speculate that he suddenly and inexplicably suffered some kind of psychotic breakdown or PTSD (he had never been deployed) sounds quite unlikely and suspiciously like a scenario concocted by the officer as a CYA. Who to believe? I believe the people who knew him and worked with him.
Connie Miller February 21, 2012 at 07:55 AM
Actually, John, (and I agree with your post) when a situation escalates, gets very sticky and is warranted, a post commander can indeed give a 'confined to post' order. That would include military and civilian personnel.
Margaret Mueller February 21, 2012 at 08:12 AM
ALEX KAYS - AS II have mentioned to you before.....I am not on any complex...God or not. You have your opinions....and I have my own. Dont tell me to stop posting on anything.....I will do as I please. You need to do a little more research before you start blabbing your mouth about things you dont know of.
Margaret Mueller February 21, 2012 at 08:14 AM
ALEX KAYS - I have not been backed into a corner, nor have I gone away. Cops do plenty of things wrong...just not in this case.
Margaret Mueller February 21, 2012 at 08:32 AM
So NANCY - Just why is it that in your comment you say "it is not safe to do a pre-dawn walk on base".............?
Nancy February 21, 2012 at 05:55 PM
Margaret--I don't have first hand knowledge of that. But I remember reading that on some other blog from someone who lives on base. Perhaps it is because there isn't an off-street place to walk, talk, and read in near darkness and there would be the risk of oncoming traffic.
Margaret Mueller February 21, 2012 at 07:03 PM
NANCY.......Why did you feel the need to hunt me down and go to the trouble of finding out my past/present employers? I have not done ANYTHING like that to anyone else on here that has an opinion. I have the right to post my thoughts just as you all do. I didnt hunt any of you down?
Nancy February 21, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Margaret, you were almost single-handedly rushing to the side of law enforcement with such vehemence (even the moderator had to ask you to chill regarding name calling), that I was curious if you worked in law enforcement. No other reason could explain your desperate-sounding posts. All I found was where you USED to work several years ago. And somebody else said you used to work at a different location, so who knows? But it does appear that sometime in the past, you worked in conjunction with sheriffs. So that explains your angle and satisfied my curiosity. At no point have I ever said where you live, or where (or even if) you are employed now. I do not know those details and I don't need to know them anymore, either. I would suggest, however, (given the response to your often inflammatory posts) that you edit your profile so that people can't google your full name.
Terry Robinson February 25, 2012 at 03:31 PM
I need a definition of what is considered excessive force by police.
Terry Robinson February 25, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Strictly a pondering here as I have no true answer.....consider that maybe the police underestimated this situation and were trying not to use excessive force. Forceful methods that most likely would been taken automatically in a serious high crime area. Seems like stronger methods from the onset would certainly have prevented Sgt. Loggins from returning to his car where his children were then compromised.
enea ostrich February 25, 2012 at 04:02 PM
A man was shot and killed because he was irrational. That doesn't seem right, any way you look at it unless he was drugged and even then I have heard of plenty of drug cases where they just run them down and brace them down and cuff them and give them the law given right to go to jail for the night and they can get out when they post bail. I think the fact that the cop is just giving us the obvious answer for him that he defended the kids is amazing. He actually is making a defense statement when he says it's also based on what the guy said to him. That is really weak, considering people that are on dope say worse things then anyone can imagine, but yet because they are high it's waived off as just irrationality that will go away when they are sober. How about the cases of domestic violence? Will the cop shoot to kill the man who is being irrational to his wife? I am not condoning violence in the home, but even a violent man has the right to go to jail and not get shot. I am not in law enforcement but it peeves me to read about this and see that there is no reasonable explanation that the cop can come up with in "shooting to kill". That to me, dear readers here, is a case of a cop gone supremely mad and made a choice that will haunt him til the day he dies. I say karma will get him and God will take care of this if the law doesn't.
Terry Robinson February 25, 2012 at 06:12 PM
If only we lived in a perfect world where there was no crime and no need for police. If only we were dealt a full hand before be had to make a decision that could end in disaster. In the real world..one can only wish and hope and think and pray.
Chris McLaughlin February 25, 2012 at 09:14 PM
Yes, Terry, finally something we totally agree on: What is considered excessive force?? What guidelines are established for OCSD to follow/criteria to be met, prior to shooting someone dead in front of their kids?? I went to my City Council meeting this week and asked that very question, and they referred me to our local Police Services office in our town. The local Police Services office and our Chief of Police Services referred me to the County level, the Professional Standards Division (PSD), and said they handle all inquires to ensure uniform and prompt responses. (What could be more uniform and prompt than an Internet-facing website with updated information??) They gave me a phone number to call, which I'll have to use since the OCSD website section for PSD doesn't look like it has anything regarding current Police procedures, except for maybe the Internal Affairs Unit, and to file an official Complaint. That may be the best way to go actually, to try to get an official response on what the current guidelines are. Maybe referring me to the PSD is code for "File an official complaint, or shut the front door, but either way we don't want to talk to you on the record." Anyway, here's the link to the form. It sounds like several Commenters may want to use it more often: http://egov.ocgov.com/vgnfiles/ocgov/Sheriff-Coroner/Docs/Division/Personnel_Complaint_Form.pdf
Chris McLaughlin February 25, 2012 at 09:26 PM
In fairness, here's the link to the OCSD website page to File a Commendation for a Sheriff's Deputy. I would be happy to file one for any OC Sheriff's Deputy that can let me know what the current protocol is for discharging your County-issued firearm on duty: http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Sheriff-Coroner%20-%20Sandra%20Hutchens/Commands%20and%20Divisions/Professional%20Services%20Command/Professional%20Standards/How%20to%20File%20a%20Commendation%20for%20an%20Employee I can't believe the round-around I'm getting on trying to research something as basic as when a Cop is allowed to shoot someone. Like it's supposed to be a secret, or is it unclear when you can start blowing citizens away on the street?? I would hope it's perfectly clear to all who carry a gun for our protection on how and when they can use it. I should be able to ask any officer driving around with gun the same question, and should get the same uniform and prompt answer from every cop on duty. The fact they can't easily respond with these rules for public review is even more disturbing from a public safety perspective. It's not just the cops who should know exactly when they can shoot people. Every citizen should know the rules, too, so they're not unpleasantly surprised at an officer's lack of restraint, like Sgt. Loggins was.
Terry Robinson February 25, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Thank you for the info Chris...I will take a look. Don't think I will be able to find out any more than you did. Obviously shooting is excessive but so many out here have expressed lots of opinions on what they consider to be excessive...even that being commanded to follow police orders is excessive....hence my desire for a definition. Do the guidelines actually change...become dated or out dated? I guess they could depending on location, increase in crime rate etc....but one thing for sure, Since I was a child many moons ago, I was taught to respect police and to obey and I do so willingly and it doesn't make me angry to do so. Somehow I understood that not doing so would be a very bad idea. Call it Vulcan logic.
Connie Miller February 26, 2012 at 04:26 AM
For your consideration: Point 1: The OCSD claim that Manny was 'irrational,' Let's see. He had collided with a gate that had always been open. He got out of the car to inspect the damage to gate and vehicle, they walked to the track to see if anyone was in fact using it. Even for a quiet-natured man, he was likely upset. To my mind that does not equate to irrational. Just my take ... Point 2. The girls in the car were screaming, perhaps for their Dad because they saw policemen with guns surrounding the car. Remember, a 14 year old has enough judgment to baby sit.
Connie Miller February 26, 2012 at 05:20 AM
If only two girls were not traumatized for life, with their father's blood, brains and bone splattered all over them. If only they were not deprived of their loving father forever. If only they would not wake up screaming from the nightmares. If only a toddler could remember her father. If only a baby were not born without a father. If only a wife were not deprived of the support of a loving husband.
Terry Robinson February 26, 2012 at 04:09 PM
There is no doubt that there will be a lot of suffering by all involved, their families and friends. Most likely, they will carry this with them for as long as they live.
Connie Miller February 26, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Terry, I wonder if the Trooper ran the license plate on the SUV and identified Manny as a Marine NCO. If not, why not. It might have made all the difference.
Jenn B February 26, 2012 at 07:07 PM
has there been any information about what the daughters witnessed?
enea ostrich February 26, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Connie brought up a very good point here—the kids screamed when they saw the cop shoot their Dad. That definitely would be a natural reaction for anyone, much less a kid. The deputy claims he did it for the sake of the children but what boggles my mind is that he wasn’t at all concerned with the scientific fact of a possible ricochet effect in the car when he shot Manny? Question: how did the cop know the kids were in the car? Was that discovered before he approached the car or after the fact of shooting Manny? That is the key question to answer for the jury eventually, and the question that will haunt this case when it goes to trial…until it is explicitly answered and there is an end to the trial. My last point is that Manny was known to run at that location on a regular basis by everyone near or at this location (that would include cops). Also too, if this deputy was fifteen years and an officer of the law, wouldn’t routine checks on license plates be the first thing he would look for as soon as he saw anything?
Douglas Martin February 26, 2012 at 08:13 PM
OK here's how the OCSD handles a eerily similar case in Dan Point last Monday. A dad acting odly (driving the wrong way on PCH) with his two daughters in the car. It's clear that the OCSD put some spin on the story, and it's also clear that the Orange County Register just went with it. Here's the blotter record (I'll post the actual record in a "reply") It's a good thing that deputy Sandberg is on leave. What if he had lulled this man over? At 1630 a call came in from an informing MOTORIST - NOT the kid, with NFD (no further details). At 1635 it appears that the child did call 911, and that the CHP was tracking the cell phone. At 1637 the last cell hit was at Alcazar and PCH. At 1639 the car is found at Golden Lantern and PCH. At 1641 - 11 minutes after the first call - the OCSD is informed that the "dad was sick", and dispatch says it may be a diabetic reation.
Douglas Martin February 26, 2012 at 08:14 PM
[2/20/2012 17:59:11 : pos5 : NOORDMANDM] [Cleared with unit 338K] [2/20/2012 17:51:33 : pos5 : NOORDMANDM] Unit : 135 UN 97 SC HOSP EMILE 63195.3 [2/20/2012 17:45:36 : pos5 : NOORDMANDM] Unit : 135 SMILE 63194.0 FROM CITY HALL TO STOP AT PCH AND COPPER LANTERN [2/20/2012 16:41:44 : pos12 : LANGDONMD] 7 YEAR OLD WAS REPORTING HER DAD WAS SICK AND THE VEH WAS STILL MOVING..STA 10 TRANSFER..THEIR DISPATCHER ADVISED POSSIBLE DIABETIC REACTION [2/20/2012 16:39:46 : pos5 : JMURPHY] Unit : 135 OCFA 97 [2/20/2012 16:39:04 : pos5 : JMURPHY] Unit : 338K COPPER LANTERN & PCH [2/20/2012 16:37:47 : pos12 : LANGDONMD] 34000 ALCAZAR [2/20/2012 16:36:51 : pos12 : LANGDONMD] LAST CELL HIT ON ALCAZAR OFF PCH [2/20/2012 16:36:14 : pos12 : LANGDONMD] HAVE UNITS PC ON ALCAZAR [2/20/2012 16:35:33 : pos13 : guzacm] OCFA ENRT TO THE AREA [2/20/2012 16:35:17 : pos5 : JMURPHY] Unit : 332 C3 [2/20/2012 16:35:16 : pos12 : LANGDONMD] PER CHP GOLDEN LANTERN AND DEL PRADO [2/20/2012 16:35:07 : pos5 : JMURPHY] Unit : 338K C3 [2/20/2012 16:30:42 : pos11 : LGALLANT] REQ TO PC THE AREA [2/20/2012 16:30:34 : pos11 : LGALLANT] INF JUST LOST VISUAL LAST TIME HE SAW HIM HE TURNED AROUND AND WAS HEADING THE CORRECT DIRECTION NFD [2/20/2012 16:30:03 : pos11 : LGALLANT] CM LAS RAMBLAS NBH: 972B6 92624 33.46702,-117.669795 VEH TRAVELING EB IN THE WB LANES SILVER VEH POSS A VW NFD
Terry Robinson February 26, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Maybe...maybe not. The deputy was also a former Marine.
Terry Robinson February 26, 2012 at 08:33 PM
Enea..have you read this article from the Patch...Police shooting avoidable, experts say? Particularly the section on procedural failure. http://sanclemente.patch.com/articles/police-expert-loggins-shooting-raises-thorny-questions According to the article....the children were screaming before their father was shot.
chris adams February 27, 2012 at 04:38 AM
dont you know by now every thing a cop does is right no matter what
Terry Robinson February 27, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Chris...that is quite untrue. Police lose their jobs quite often and some even end up in prison. There are good and bad in every single walk of life, unfortunately police are not exempt. That said.....when it comes to a typical need for protection....there are good guys and there are bad guys. The police are the good guys and I am ever so grateful for them. They have saved my @$$ more than once.
chris adams February 28, 2012 at 12:20 AM
i am sure the two girls whos dad was murdered in cold blood under the color of authority love the police like you terry.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »