The trial of a San Diego County sheriff’s deputy accused of fatally shooting an unarmed man in the back as he ran away began this week, drawing renewed attention to the use of force by law enforcement in the region. Jurors will be asked to determine whether the deputy’s actions during the 2022 encounter were legally justified or constituted a criminal overreach, in a case that has stirred public debate over police accountability, training, and the treatment of fleeing suspects. Opening statements at the downtown San Diego courthouse set the stage for a closely watched proceeding, as prosecutors and defense attorneys offered sharply contrasting narratives of the moments leading up to the deadly gunfire.
Background on the fatal shooting and key evidence presented as the deputy stands trial
The case centers on a late-night encounter in rural East County, where authorities say a routine contact rapidly escalated into a deadly foot chase. According to investigators, the deputy fired multiple rounds as the 36-year-old man ran away across a dimly lit parking area, striking him in the back and killing him at the scene. Prosecutors argue the man was unarmed, posed no imminent threat, and was moving in the opposite direction when the shots were fired. Defense attorneys counter that the deputy had only seconds to react and believed the suspect might be reaching for a weapon or preparing to turn and attack.
In opening statements, jurors were told they would see and hear a range of evidence designed to reconstruct those critical seconds before the shots rang out, including:
- Body-worn camera video capturing the initial contact, shouted commands, and gunfire
- Enhanced audio analysis of the deputy’s verbal warnings and the timing of each shot
- Crime scene diagrams mapping the distance between the deputy and the fleeing man
- Autopsy findings detailing bullet entry wounds to the back and trajectory paths
- Radio dispatch logs documenting what the deputy reported before and after the shooting
| Key Evidence | Prosecution Focus | Defense Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Body-cam footage | Shots at fleeing, unarmed man | Rapid, tense decision-making |
| Autopsy report | Wounds to back, no weapon found | Claimed perceived threat |
| Use-of-force policy | Alleged violation of protocol | Policy allows split-second judgment |
Use of force policies under scrutiny as prosecutors question decision to shoot fleeing unarmed man
In the courtroom, jurors are being asked to dissect split-second choices that now span hours of testimony and cross-examination, as prosecutors argue that department guidelines were stretched beyond their intent when a deputy opened fire on a man who was running away and carried no weapon. At the center of the case is whether the deputy’s perception of danger met the legal threshold for deadly force, or whether, as prosecutors contend, the shooting reflected a pattern of deference to officer fear over measurable threat. Legal experts note that nationwide standards increasingly emphasize de-escalation and proportionality, forcing agencies to reconcile older training models with modern expectations for accountability and transparency.
The trial is also exposing how policy language can shift from abstract principle to life-or-death decision in seconds. Prosecutors have highlighted specific provisions that they say were ignored or misapplied, contrasting them with evolving national best practices:
- Requirement to assess immediate threat vs. a suspect merely fleeing
- Clear identification of a weapon before employing deadly force
- Duty to consider alternatives, including verbal commands and containment
- Obligation to protect bystanders when firing into public spaces
| Policy Focus | Prosecutors’ View | Key Question |
|---|---|---|
| Deadly force on fleeing suspects | Applied too broadly | Was escape equated with lethal threat? |
| Use-of-force training | Outdated or inconsistent | Did training encourage shooting in this scenario? |
| Documentation & review | Insufficient internal scrutiny | Were red flags missed before this incident? |
Community reaction and calls for accountability amid broader debate over police shootings in San Diego County
Outside the courthouse, activists, faith leaders, and relatives of past shooting victims gathered with handmade signs and printed banners, framing the trial as a pivotal test of whether law enforcement in San Diego County will face meaningful consequences when deadly force is used against unarmed residents. Chants for transparency, justice, and independent oversight echoed alongside quieter conversations about fear and distrust in communities that say they are disproportionately targeted by aggressive policing. Local organizations quickly mobilized, organizing vigils and know-your-rights workshops, while civil rights attorneys warned that the outcome could either reinforce longstanding skepticism or mark a rare moment of accountability. The sheriff’s department, under mounting scrutiny, has maintained that deputies must make split-second decisions, but critics argue that pattern data and repeated settlements show systemic failures rather than isolated mistakes.
Amid the tensions, city and county officials are facing mounting pressure to move beyond statements of concern and enact concrete reforms. Activists are urging leaders to:
- Strengthen civilian oversight boards with subpoena power and independent investigative staff.
- Expand de-escalation and bias training, tying completion and performance to promotions.
- Increase public access to body-camera footage and internal disciplinary records.
- Reevaluate pursuit and use-of-force policies, particularly when suspects are unarmed or fleeing.
| Key Issue | Advocates’ Demand |
|---|---|
| Oversight | Independent review of all fatal shootings |
| Transparency | Timely release of reports and video |
| Training | Mandatory de-escalation in high-risk stops |
| Accountability | Clear consequences for policy violations |
Policy recommendations and training reforms proposed to prevent future shootings of unarmed suspects
In the wake of the shooting, criminal justice advocates and legal analysts are urging San Diego County leaders to move beyond individual accountability and overhaul how deputies are trained to handle fast-moving encounters with unarmed suspects. Reform proposals focus on tightening departmental rules on when officers may fire at fleeing individuals, expanding requirements to use de-escalation and time-and-distance tactics, and mandating detailed review of every instance in which a deputy points or discharges a weapon. Civil rights groups are also pressing for independent oversight to ensure that any revised policies are not only written, but enforced consistently across the sheriff’s stations that patrol the region.
Training reforms under discussion would shift emphasis from split-second “shoot/don’t shoot” scenarios to scenario-based instruction that rewards restraint, communication, and tactical repositioning. Advocates are calling for structured courses on recognizing mental health crises, implicit bias, and alternatives to foot pursuits that can escalate into deadly force. Suggested measures include:
- Rewriting use-of-force policies to clearly prohibit shooting at fleeing, unarmed suspects except in narrowly defined, imminent-threat situations.
- Mandatory de-escalation modules with annual recertification and performance-based evaluations.
- Body-worn camera audits to identify patterns of high-risk behavior before they result in tragedy.
- Community advisory input on training curricula, particularly from neighborhoods most affected by police use of force.
| Reform Area | Key Change |
|---|---|
| Use-of-Force Rules | Stricter limits on shooting at fleeing suspects |
| Training Focus | De-escalation and communication first |
| Accountability | Independent review of critical incidents |
| Community Role | Public input in policy and curriculum |
To Wrap It Up
As testimony continues, the trial will not only determine whether Deputy Perez is criminally liable in D’Andre Glasper’s death, but also test how far the justice system is willing to scrutinize split-second decisions by law enforcement. Jurors are expected to hear from use-of-force experts, eyewitnesses, and forensic specialists in the days ahead, while both legal teams seek to shape a narrative about fear, responsibility, and the boundaries of reasonable force.
The proceedings come at a time of heightened public attention to police accountability, and the outcome could influence how similar cases are investigated and prosecuted in San Diego County and beyond. The trial is expected to last several weeks. NBC 7 will continue to follow developments in the courtroom and provide updates as new details emerge.
