Ben Nisenbaum, a lawyer who is representing the family, told the Washington Post that the attorney-general’s decision was disheartening for the family – but not unexpected.
Given that police are rarely prosecuted when they kill someone while on duty, Perez’s family will seek accountability through federal civil rights law and a wrongful death suit they filed against the city of Pocatello in April, Nisenbaum said.
“There is no good reason for killing Mr Perez, and we will hold the officers and the city accountable for it,” he said in an email.
The Bannock County Prosecutor’s Office had requested Labrador’s office carry out a review of the case, and did not carry out its own investigation.
Perez had a number of medical conditions, including developmental delays, autism, and an abnormal gait, the autopsy report stated.
While his family tried to keep him away from knives, on the day of the shooting he had managed to get hold of a kitchen knife with a blade about 22cm long.
Family members, including his grandfather, mother, and 16-year-old sister struggled with him, the attorney-general’s office said in the letter.
Police officers responded to the scene after a witness who did not know Perez reported “a disturbance where an intoxicated male was trying to stab others with a knife”, according to the letter. By the time they arrived, Perez was on the ground after being hit on the head with a log.
The teen’s grandfather and sister both tried to deter the officers as they approached the fence, pointed their guns at Perez and repeatedly shouted for him to drop the knife.
Perez struggled to stand and then moved towards the fence, with the blade pointed towards the officers, the letter said, adding that the difficulties he had standing were “consistent with being intoxicated”.
Investigators estimated that Perez was about 3.6m away from the officers when they opened fire.
The letter acknowledged that while the officers could have stood back from the 1.2m fence that separated them from Perez as he approached them, the state’s “stand your ground” laws meant they were not obliged to do so.
“With the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of Perez’s disabilities, we can say that it would have been better for everyone had the officers kept their distance from the fence,” the letter said.
It added that the state “would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of deadly force was not justified in this matter because the officers were not familiar with Perez’s limited capabilities”.
The letter said an expert had found that “any reasonable officer in these officers’ position and with only the limited information these officers possessed would have viewed the unknown male as an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time the officers started shooting”.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.
