With our free press under threat and federal funding for public media gone, your support matters more than ever. Help keep the LAist newsroom strong, become a monthly member or increase your support today.
3 Experts Question Whether Fatal Huntington Park Shooting Was Justified. One Defends It

Last month’s fatal police shooting of Anthony Lowe by Huntington Park police has raised questions about the officers' tactics.
Police say Lowe, who had lost both legs and used a wheelchair, stabbed someone before they approached him on the afternoon of Jan. 26.
Video released Monday shows Lowe out of his wheelchair, hobbling away on a sidewalk, away from officers for about 30 seconds. Officers followed him from about six feet away. They opened fire when he turned toward them and raised a knife.
Lowe’s son has filed a legal claim against Huntington Park, and his mother and daughter are preparing a separate claim, which is a precursor to a lawsuit.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is investigating the shooting.
We asked four use-of-force experts to review the video. Three believe the officers could have used different tactics to avoid the use of deadly force; one thought the use of lethal gunfire was justified.
Seth Stoughton: ‘Keep A Tactically Safe Distance’
Seth Stoughton, a professor of law at the University of South Carolina, questions why the officers weren’t farther away from Lowe.
“Generally when officers are interacting with someone with a knife or other melee weapon, they want to keep a tactically safe distance,” he said. “They want to put some space between themselves and the person with the weapon, which gives them time to think and plan and try to implement options other than using force.”
He added that police could have also used cover, pointing out there’s a tree and telephone pole at the scene the officers could have gotten behind. Police could have also used their cars or other equipment as cover, he said.
“For example, did officers have riot shields in their car?”
Staughton noted that while the video is “incredibly important, it’s not the sum total of all possible evidence in any given case.”
Josh Parker: No Imminent Threat Of Death Or Serious Injury
Josh Parker, senior counsel at the Policing Project at New York University, believes the incident didn’t warrant the use of deadly force. He notes that deadly force is only authorized if an officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that it’s necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious injury to another.
“He's certainly not within stabbing distance,” Parker said. “And … we could see in the video that he is not able to move that quickly because he's missing two legs, so this does not appear to be a case where he was posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.”
He also questioned why officers did not create more distance between themselves and Lowe.
“If someone is hobbling away and there's some distance between you and the person with the knife, creating greater distance is a way to avoid any imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers or another person,” Parker said.
Tim Williams: ‘Time Was Their Companion’
Tim Williams, a retired LAPD detective and use-of-force expert, argued the incident “didn’t warrant lethal force” because it appeared the officers had time to use other tactics.
“Time was their companion and you could have brought less lethal munitions to the scene,” he said.
Williams acknowledged that a knife can cause serious bodily injury or death, but pointed out that Lowe was moving away from the officers.
Philip Stinson: Lowe ‘Already Stabbed Somebody, So It’s A Volatile Situation’
Philip Stinson, a professor of criminal justice at Bowling Green State University, believes police were legally justified in using deadly force.
“What struck me is that we have somebody that has a knife and when the police respond they know they’ve already stabbed somebody, so it’s a volatile situation,” he said.
“You could make an argument that the officers had time on their side, that they could have slowed down the situation, that they could have deescalated the situation,” Stinson said. “But it's very difficult when you've got somebody who's moving down a sidewalk.”
At LAist, we believe in journalism without censorship and the right of a free press to speak truth to those in power. Our hard-hitting watchdog reporting on local government, climate, and the ongoing housing and homelessness crisis is trustworthy, independent and freely accessible to everyone thanks to the support of readers like you.
But the game has changed: Congress voted to eliminate funding for public media across the country. Here at LAist that means a loss of $1.7 million in our budget every year. We want to assure you that despite growing threats to free press and free speech, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust. Speaking frankly, the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news in our community.
We’re asking you to stand up for independent reporting that will not be silenced. With more individuals like you supporting this public service, we can continue to provide essential coverage for Southern Californians that you can’t find anywhere else. Become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission.
Thank you for your generous support and belief in the value of independent news.

-
Doctors say administrator directives allow immigration agents to interfere in medical decisions and compromise medical care.
-
The Palisades Fire erupted on Jan. 7 and went on to kill 12 people and destroy more than 6,800 homes and buildings.
-
People moving to Los Angeles are regularly baffled by the region’s refrigerator-less apartments. They’ll soon be a thing of the past.
-
Experts say students shouldn't readily forgo federal aid. But a California-only program may be a good alternative in some cases.
-
Distrito Catorce’s Guillermo Piñon says the team no longer reflects his community. A new mural will honor local leaders instead.
-
The program is for customers in communities that may not be able to afford turf removal or water-saving upgrades.