Sgt. Roger Kinney confirmed on Monday evening that charges against the juvenile in the arrest witnessed by the Vanguard last week were dropped on Monday. The corrected age of the juvenile was 16 years, not 13 as previously reported. However, the juvenile remains in custody on the previous no-bail warrant, according to other sources.
Charges remain in place for the three adults charged in this case, with charges ranging from possession of a concealed firearm, firing a firearm from a moving vehicle and various gang and marijuana charges.
Previous Story: Vanguard Witnesses Major Gun, Gang Arrest in West Sacramento
Four youths, one of them juvenile, arrested on gun and gang charges
A quiet ridealong in West Sacramento turned intense on Thursday evening when the police pulled over a pickup truck full of four youths suspected of brandishing and firing a weapon. By the time the vehicle with the Vanguard arrived on the scene, guns were drawn and the youth were called out one by one.
On the scene, the Vanguard would learn that four youths were arrested, with ages ranging from 13 to 20. Two weapons and a BB gun were pulled out of the vehicle, including a 9 mm pistol believed to be stolen with the serial number filed off. Also found in the vehicle was a quantity of marijuana.
The 13-year-old, the Vanguard would learn, had a no-bail warrant issued for him. The other individuals were all on probation and said to be validated gang members.
Sgt. Roger Kinney on Friday gave the Vanguard the official report. Thursday night’s incident was the follow-up to a shooting that occurred in the 3200 block of West Capitol Avenue on Tuesday night around 6 pm. Investigators were following up on leads to that incident, which led them to the individuals stopped two nights later.
Sgt. Kinney said that, during the stop, they recovered two loaded hand guns – one of them was determined to have been stolen. There was also a BB gun. They also found “a significant amount of marijuana in the car.”
“At least two of those individuals were identified in the shooting that occurred Tuesday night in that 3200 block, of Nicky’s Market,” Sgt. Kinney told the Vanguard.
Later the West Sacramento Police Department released the names of the individuals – except for the minor – as well as the charges.
Jesus Baeza Cornejo, age 20 from West Sacramento, was charged with carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle, carrying a concealed stolen firearm, carrying a concealed firearm while participating in criminal street gang activity, possession of stolen property, possession of marijuana for sale, and active participation in a criminal street gang.
Ricky Hernandez, age 19 from West Sacramento, was charged with carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle, carrying a concealed stolen firearm, carrying a concealed firearm while participating in criminal street gang activity, possession of stolen property, possession of marijuana for sale, active participation in a criminal street gang, shooting at an occupied dwelling, brandishing a firearm and firing a gun from a moving vehicle.
Joshua Cadenaz, age 20, a transient, was charged with carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle, carrying a concealed stolen firearm, carrying a concealed firearm while participating in criminal street gang activity, possession of stolen property, possession of marijuana for sale, and active participation in a criminal street gang.
The juvenile on the scene was said to be 13 years old and from Sacramento, and was charged with carrying a concealed firearm within a vehicle, carrying a concealed stolen firearm, carrying a concealed firearm while participating in criminal street gang activity, possession of stolen property, possession of marijuana for sale, active participation in a criminal street gang, shooting at an occupied dwelling, brandishing a firearm and firing a gun from a moving vehicle.
The case has been forwarded to the district attorney’s office, which will make a formal determination as to what the youths will be formally charged with, upon reviewing the report.
At the scene on Thursday, as indicated, the four were pulled over, and guns were drawn by Sacramento police officers who then called them out one by one as they surrendered without further incident and were taken into custody.
There was verbal anger in the parking lot, however, as family members and community members shouted angry comments toward the police and verbally feared that this would end in a police shooting.
People continued to gather and watch the incident, despite repeated warnings by the police that this was a dangerous situation.
The Vanguard will track this case through the court system, through its Court Watch Program.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Maybe the family and community members could do a better job raising their children not to be thugs instead of shouting at the police who were doing their duty.
BTW, were the cops professional and did they do a good job? I don’t remember reading anything about that in the article.
From what I saw the police were extremely professional. It was a volatile situation and they described to me that there was a lot of movement in the car and there was a fear that the youths would try to exist provoking a confrontation. That didn’t happen. I thought the police did a good job of diffusing some of the frustration and anger. I’d like to know more about the background of the kids before criticizing parents and community. Just to note, as someone who now has a 13 year old, I know how difficult it is to undo trauma from early childhood under the best of circumstances.
David, if you witnessed the police arresting your 13 year old getting caught with a gun would you be harrassing the cops or would you be pissed at your kid for packing a gun and acting like a thug?
I don’t know that my reaction would be to get pissed. My first concern would be to get him help – lawyer, bail, etc. My second concern would be to determine what he was actually doing? In this case they have him charged with firing the gun, but the gun was not found directly on him, so there are a lot of things that would be weighed.
Would you be hollering at the cops at the time of the arrest once your son was caught with a gun and cruising with thugs? I doubt it, I know you’re a good father. I know if it was my son I would be all over him and he would regret the day that I discovered this. I certainly wouldn’t be shouting at the police.
I would have to be provoked pretty hard to shout at the cops. But where I’m sensitive about this is we don’t know a lot about these kids or family members (I’m not sure how many parents were there). We’ve had to work very hard for a long time to deal with early childhood trauma and it has made me very aware of how strong it can be. Add in other elements and it makes it harder. That’s all I’m trying to say.
David, what you’re saying doesn’t equate to the incident that you wrote the article about.
“Maybe the family and community members could do a better job raising their children not to be thugs instead of shouting at the police who were doing their duty.”
What I am saying relates to your initial comment – I don’t know enough to know what their upbringing looked like.
“BTW, were the cops professional and did they do a good job? “
Maybe this would be the first question that should be addressed prior to leaping to conclusion either way ?
Come on Tia, how long have you been posting on the V? If the officers weren’t professional or had done a bad job that would’ve been the main gist of the article. I simply wanted to have David admit that they did a good, professional job which he failed to point out in the column.
It wasn’t a commentary – I was trying to describe what happened. The guy I rode with, Roger Kinney, was very skilled at defusing things. At one time, he told a passerby, this is a real gun, you might want to get back.
BP
“I simply wanted to have David admit that they did a good, professional job which he failed to point out in the column.
I applaud your honesty. From my perspective a slight rewording is in order. I believe that what you wanted was to have David admit to something that you had no idea whether it was true or not until David wrote his responses, but which fits with your pre-existing bias.
There you go doing what you hate when other people do it to you, putting words in in someone’s mouth.
Now honestly do you believe for one second that if the cops had acted badly that David wouldn’t have reported it in this article? Now remember, I said honestly, we are talking about David here.
The story would have focused around that rather than the arrest.
David, I would like you to step back a moment and look at what you said. If the police were unprofessional then that is what this story would focus on. But, since they were not, you just wanted to give a “factual” account of the story. The “fact” is that they preformed their job in a highly professional manner. Why don’t you ever write a story about that instead of only delving into the bad job you see some officers doing? To be an honest news source you have to report the news not create it. If you have a bias against police officers then perhaps you shouldn’t write the stories about them so that someone without such bias can present the facts in an unbiased fashion. If you want your readers to presume nothing about those being arrested, then you should presume nothing about those doing the arresting. It goes both ways!
It comes down to this – what is news? If I walk down the street, pass a dog and it doesn’t bark, is that news? So what I saw on Thursday, the story was the arrest of four kids. Had something happened and the kids been shot, then that would have been the story. Not sure what is controversial about that. It seems to me, journalism 101.
I posted this story in real time on Facebook on Thursday and people jumped to conclusions – and given how little we know, I think that’s not a wise idea. There are a lot of very complex situations and people’s initial reaction is often anger, frustration and a mix of emotions. Things will sort out better over time and we have to remember, that there is a presumption of innocence in this country for a reason.
And, that presumption of innocence should be afforded to the police as well as the accused…
I’d love to have a presumption of innocence for the police – the problem I see is that it’s difficult to get a transparent accounting of what happens in a lot of incidents – which means the focus becomes what happens rather than allowing the process to work itself out. At least in a criminal matter we know the process, we know that they will have a public trial where evidence gets presented. None of that occurs in most police incidents. So you’re not talking parallel processes to start.
And it will be easy to have transparency into the acts, behaviors, etc. of those arrested? Right…
hpierce
“that presumption of innocence should be afforded to the police…..”
Absolutely.
David wrote:
> we have to remember, that there is a presumption
> of innocence in this country for a reason.
Whenever I see anyone wearing a giant white “gangbanger” T Shirt (or a 1% patch on a “biker” vest) I no longer “presume” they are innocent…
P.S. Maybe more “affordable” housing in town will add to the “diversity” of Davis (since unlike West Sac we currently don’t have a lot of 13 year old parolees who wank around packing stolen guns)…
“Whenever I see anyone wearing a giant white “gangbanger” T Shirt (or a 1% patch on a “biker” vest) I no longer “presume” they are innocent…”
Just because they wear stupid clothes, doesn’t mean they committed a crime.
David wrote:
> Just because they wear stupid clothes, doesn’t
> mean they committed a crime.
Can you name a single person in Davis that dresses like a gang banger or outlaw biker (actually has a 1% patch) that does not commit crimes on a regular basis?
P.S. Does anyone else find it funny that most of the same people that say “you should not assume someone is a criminal just because they dress like a criminal” are the people that almost always assume anyone dressed like a cop is lying and/or planting knives and/or guns on innocent people of color…
“Can you name a single person in Davis that dresses like a gang banger or outlaw biker (actually has a 1% patch) that does not commit crimes on a regular basis?”
Is that an answerable question as posed?
“P.S. Does anyone else find it funny that most of the same people that say “you should not assume someone is a criminal just because they dress like a criminal” are the people that almost always assume anyone dressed like a cop is lying and/or planting knives and/or guns on innocent people of color…”
I addressed this point earlier – we have a criminal justice process where these kids are entitled under the law to the presumption of innocence, they get to have a public trial where evidence is put on. The problem in most police incidents is that the process is opaque at best, there is rarely a public hearing, rarely a transparent process and we have to fight to get videos and other evidence released and often enough when they are, they show there was dishonesty if not an outright coverup. So the differences in the system explain the differential response.
David wrote:
> Is that an answerable question as posed?
You could say, Dr. Hernandez at UCD has a MS 13 neck tattoo and wears a big white shirt almost every day or my minister Rev. Mitchell has a 1% neck tattoo and rides his ’67 shovelhead to feed the homeless every day.
You could also say I can’t name a single person and South of Davis is probably correct in assuming that most (but not all) people that dress like gang members and outlaw bikers live a life of crime…
> So the differences in the system explain the differential response.
I’m not clear how “differences in the system” is why you (almost) always seem to assume that the cops planted the knife or gun on the poor person of color (who was not really in a gang).
https://davisvanguard.org/2010/05/was-luis-gutierrez-a-sureno/
omg….I have known a ton of “bikers” in my life…. did you know that many of those tatooed folks are mostly very clean living….no drugs, no crime and yeah, some do drink a bit…..but it is such a wrong stereotype…. some very old friends from the 70s were bikers in and around Davis….some are women…most of the women are now died too young of cancer or had to stop riding due to age….several of one very large family worked for the Harley headquarters in Wisconsin.
Bikers do a lot of fundraisers…for example toys for tots….and you can actually meet some at the Plainfield station and also at the Roadtrip in the town of Capay..
why would a biker want to ride through the congested streets of Davis since Highway 40 became first street?
Diversity? are you kidding me? look around you in this town….
And, we do have gang activity …it is mostly near and around.the low income housing developments on fifth in East Davis, and around the Valdora area and also the Cowell area in SoDA
Marina wrote:
> I have known a ton of “bikers” in my life…. did you know
> that many of those tatooed folks are mostly very clean living
Marina is correct that (as the AMA says) “99% of bikers are law-abiding citizens”
I’m talking about the 1% (that wear the 1% patch).
http://guestofaguest.com/new-york/instant-expert/the-original-one-percenter
haha…. I thought you meant THE 1%….like in the upper 1% 😉
who has time to keep up with such stuff…
PS> And how do you know the biker wasn’t part of the other 1%?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/3/31/Homer-twiddle-thumb.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150209103533
BP
“There you go doing what you hate when other people do it to you, putting words in in someone’s mouth.”
I put no words in anyone’s mouth. My post was clear with “I believe” and ” from my perspective”. I do not believe that you will find a single post of mine that makes the assumption that I know what anyone else actually believes. I don’t play the “oh come on” or “just admit it” or “everyone knows” game since it has become more and more clear to me the older I get that not every one shares my point of view regardless of how strongly I believe something to be true.
“Why don’t you ever write a story about that instead of only delving into the bad job you see some officers doing?”
I am a little confused about what some of you seem to want. David has been criticized many, many times for reporting factually and then editorializing in the same article. Now, when he simply reports the facts about what occurred but does not editorialize on the behavior of the police in a positive fashion, he is taking flack for the straightforward factual report. What this is sounding like to me is that you actually do want editorializing within the body of an article, but only when it presents a position that you want put forward. Do I have that about right ? And if not, why not ?
David’s own words, if the cops acted badly the story would’ve been different. So why not the opposite when they do a good job? It would’ve only taken one sentence.
In that scenario, the story would have been something that occurred – police shoot, etc. in this case, I would be offering a judgement.
There is another way to handle it – you asked the question up front, I answered it. Should have been end of story, but it’s not for reasons that don’t make sense to me.
interesting that the charge was dropped against the juvenile, we’ll unfortunately never know why most likely
“we’ll unfortunately never know why most likely”
Fuel to coerce a confession from one of the adults, I’d imagine.