Shootout Raises Too Many Questions

When SWAT officers entered the tiny office after a 2 1/2 -hour standoff in Watts 10 days ago, the 19-month-old girl they were trying to save was in her father’s arms.

Moments later, the father and the girl were dead, both killed by police bullets.

I learned this from LAPD Chief William J. Bratton on Tuesday evening after visiting the site of the controversial shooting at 104th Street and Avalon Boulevard and calling the chief with questions.

I’d had some questions before visiting the scene. Afterward, I had more.

The Raul’s Auto Sales building is roughly the size of a two-car garage, with an interior office the size of a toolshed. Standing inside, I was surrounded by dozens of bullet holes. It wasn’t hard to imagine the intensity of the firefight that claimed the lives of the toddler and her father and left a police officer wounded.

On one wall alone, I counted 26 bullet holes. Tiny shafts of sunlight sliced through more than a dozen bullet holes in the exterior walls.

Half a block away, I had met the toddler’s mother, Lorena Lopez, who came out on her front step holding a blue pajama top to her face. She told me her daughter, Suzie Marie, was wearing it the morning she was killed. Lopez said she could still smell her daughter.

I’d been reserving judgment on the shooting, which has sparked community cries for justice, because what happened on that day wasn’t entirely clear. But 10 days later, it wasn’t much clearer. Although police had said a lot about the incident, they hadn’t said much about the most critical moments of the shootout.

It seemed obvious from the beginning that the toddler’s father, Jose Raul Pena, was chiefly and unconscionably responsible for the death of his daughter. Bratton was on the money when he attacked those who defended Pena as a good man unfairly targeted by overzealous police.

“This is not a good father,” Bratton snapped. “He is no hero.”

But that doesn’t answer everything.

Police say the 35-year-old undocumented immigrant used his toddler as a human shield while shooting at officers with a stolen gun, and that he had threatened several family members, two of whom called police for help.

In the Los Angeles Police Department’s version of events, Pena fired at officers when they arrived on the scene. Pena’s teenage stepdaughter, who was there for a time, later told police that Pena was flying high on cocaine and alcohol. A hostage negotiator tried to talk him into surrendering, but he allegedly said he wasn’t going to jail.

Clearly, he wanted a confrontation. And he got one.

But why, exactly, did the SWAT team rush in when it did, rather than wait Pena out?

In defense of the police, they had two considerations:

What might happen to the child if they did go in.

And what might happen to her if they didn’t.

Police say a SWAT team member claimed to have a clear shot at Pena from the turret of an armored vehicle. The bullet fired by the officer was believed to have wounded Pena, and five officers rushed in to rescue the toddler, assuming the father was disabled.

But Pena was still moving and shooting. He apparently retreated into the small interior office and fired through the wall at pursuing officers who braved a hail of gunfire.

SWAT team member Daniel Sanchez caught a bullet in the shoulder and went down.

A flash-bang device was tossed into the office, fogging the room with dust and smoke.

When the shooting stopped, Pena was dead.

So, too, was Suzie Marie.

The girl, with brown hair and brown eyes, had a massive bullet wound to her head and two more bullet wounds on her leg.

We could debate for months and never agree on the wisdom of the police decision to go in rather than waiting it out, and on the “clear shot” fired by the SWAT team officer.

For me, the bigger issue is what happened once police got inside. With Pena blasting away, the situation was no doubt chaotic, fast-moving and terrifying, and it goes without saying that every officer who dashed into the building was putting his life on the line to save the child.

But where was the little girl at that point?

If she was still alive, could police see her as they traded gunfire with Pena?

If so, did they assume they could still shoot him without shooting her?

Was their vision clouded by the flash-bang device?

Did Officer Sanchez fall after being hit and accidentally fire his weapon when he went down?

Since police haven’t explained what happened in any detail, it’s fair to wonder if, once Sanchez went down, officers might have been less restrained.

I’m not a forensic specialist, but a close look at the office wall reveals what appear to be both entry and exit holes, meaning that shots were fired out of the office (ostensibly by Pena), and into the office (ostensibly by police).

If that’s the case, is it possible the girl was killed by a bullet fired blindly through a wall? And if so, why were they firing into a room when they couldn’t see what was on the other side?

Chief Bratton told me he doesn’t have all the answers yet, but those questions are the focus of the investigation.

He did say that Pena fired more than 40 shots, police fired more than 100, and that the toddler was in Pena’s arms when he was shot and killed.

“We know that because one of the officers removed her from his arms,” Bratton said.

Was she shot during the exchange in the office, then?

Bratton said he didn’t know. It was possible, he said, that she was killed earlier and Pena was still holding her in his arms.

The coroner’s report suggests Suzie Marie was killed by a .223-caliber rifle shot, and, as Bratton pointed out, the SWAT officers who entered the office were armed with .223s.

So it’s possible, I said, that the toddler was alive when SWAT officers stormed the office, and one of them shot her.

“That’s potentially correct,” Bratton said.

But other officers were using .223s, the chief said, so it’s possible one of them might have fired the fatal shot earlier in the standoff.

“There’s no getting around the fact that she was shot by one of our officers,” Bratton said.

If she was shot by one of the five officers who entered the building, Bratton said, “I do not believe they were firing blindly into walls.” Those officers didn’t shoot, he said, until they were inside the interior office.

If one of them fired the shot that killed the toddler, Bratton said, it may be impossible to determine who fired the fatal shot.

“We don’t know and probably never will know ... because the bullet was a through-and-through” -- meaning it passed through the girl’s head -- and may be difficult to connect to a specific weapon.

Bratton said it could take several months before all the answers are in.

I’m not sure I understand why. The five SWAT officers know what happened, and the LAPD knows where to find them.

But let me repeat: The man chiefly and unconscionably responsible for Suzie Marie’s death is dead.

Reach the columnist at steve.lopez@latimes.com