 Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all for coming. I'm the different chief of police, Ron Thomas, here with Major Crimes Division Commander Matt Clark. To talk about two critical incidents, provide a follow-up briefing on these two incidents. The first being a incursity death that occurred a week ago this past Sunday with an individual that officers first contacted at 37th in Quebec. The second incident being an officer involved shooting that occurred a week ago Monday in the 800 block of South Quebec. So with that, I'll turn it over to Commander Clark. Good afternoon. Thank you for being here and giving us an opportunity to provide an update on these two recent critical incidents that were investigated by the Denver Police Department. The first incident we'll just go in chronological order is the incursity death incident that the chief described in the 3,700 block of North Quebec Street. It occurred on Sunday, the 26th of November, 2023, and officers were dispatched to that incident around 8.50 in the morning. Both of these briefings are intended to be a follow-up based on information that we received through the course of the investigation by interviewing numerous witnesses, speaking to the involved officers, and analyzing evidence collected at the scene. So to the degree we're able to at the conclusion of each incident, I'll take questions. On Sunday, November 26, 2023, around 8.45 in the morning, Denver Police officers were called to the Fusion Studios at 3737 North Quebec Street regarding an individual who was at the location in violation of a protection order. The restraining order was related to a prior felony menacing case that had occurred at the same location in September of 2023, and the subject's movements were being monitored by GPS through pretrial services as a result of that case. The caller who was representing pretrial services reported that the subject's ankle monitor placed him at the location, which was prohibited under the terms of the protection order. Additionally, the caller reported receiving a tamper alert indicating the subject may have removed the ankle monitoring device from his person. Uniform Denver Police officers arrived at the location around 9.20 AM and located the subject's ankle monitor in the alley. Officers determined the subject had went into a unit at that same building there and attempted contact him with him at that location. At about 9.32 that same morning, the subject was located and arrested in the bathroom of that specific unit. While officers were in the bathroom where the subject was arrested, they observed evidence that he may have been attempting to dispose of narcotics by either flushing them down the toilet or running them down the sink drain in that bathroom. Out of an abundance of caution, the officers called for an ambulance to evaluate the subject at the scene in case he had consumed any narcotics prior to the arrest. The subject was evaluated at the scene by a medical crew and determined to be medically clear for transport to the Denver Detention Center. The subject was transported from the scene in the back of a police vehicle. At approximately 1046, which was more than an hour after the arrest, the officer who was transporting the subject to the Denver Detention Center noticed the man was possibly experiencing a medical episode. At this time, excuse me, the officer at that point was in the area of 29th and Champa Street. That officer made notification, requested paramedics, and additional officers responded to assist as well. Officers removed the subject from the patrol vehicle and attempted to speak with him to understand the cause and nature of the medical incident he was experiencing. At this time, the man was conscious and standing outside of the police vehicle. After several minutes, the subject became unconscious and stopped breathing. The officers recognized this, immediately began performing CPR, and administered naloxone in case he was experiencing an opioid-related overdose. The naloxone had no apparent effect on him. The subject was transported to the hospital by ambulance and was pronounced deceased later that same day. Based upon the custody status of the individual, when he experienced the medical event, the department followed its critical incident investigative protocol, which included investigators from the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, the Colorado State Patrol, Denver Police's homicide unit, the Denver District Attorney's Office, and the monitoring of the, by the Office of the Independent Monitor. The subject was identified as 43-year-old Jesse Stowers. The Office of the Medical Examiner is investigating to determine the individual's cause and manner of death. And while toxicology details are not currently available, preliminary information indicates narcotics may have benefactored his death. The officers involved in the arrest and transport and treatment of Mr. Stowers are patrol officers assigned to Patrol District 2. The officers had their body-worn cameras activated and it captured their interaction with him both in the hotel bathroom, or excuse me, in the bathroom of the unit he was in, as well as when they attempted to render aid to him. The involved officers have returned to work in their normal patrol capacity. I can answer any questions about that incident. Were there drugs found there? There was evidence of drugs. There was some paraphernalia. There was an indication that he likely flushed the quantity of narcotics prior to the arrival of officers. He was. He was seated upright in handcuffed behind his back. Sir. What do you guys encounter? How long does it take for the guy to actually start showing signs of having a medical incident? It was during transport. So it was along the route from the 3,700 block of Quebec to where the officer stopped near 29th and Champus. So several minutes of transport when they recognized he needed some assistance. About 20 minutes. Less than that, I believe. Yes, ma'am. Sorry. Could you spell that last name as an S-T-O-W-E-R-S? That's exactly it. S-T-O-W-E-R-S. Yes, ma'am. So this is the second in custody death then in November? Correct. What is your reaction to that? Well, this, again, I think, similar to the others, we're going to find a narcotics connection to those as well. And it just happens to be that the officers are in contact with that individual at the time that they experienced that medical event. I think, in both cases, the officers responded immediately, recognized it, utilized the Narcan that they carry with them daily to attempt to reverse a potential opioid overdose. Do you guys believe that the guy was intoxicating? Possibly into the influence of narcotics. Or I believe that possibly narcotics played a role in this to some degree. Do you guys have a word about it? Toxicology, unfortunately, takes several weeks, so I don't have any specific details yet. You see how the sky had a ankle monitor on? What's his history with drugs? So I'm not able to get into criminal histories on him. All right. The next incident is a police officer involved shooting that occurred on Monday, November 27th, that approximately 1.40 in the afternoon at the apartment complex located at 888 South Oneida Street. On November 27, 2023, at approximately 1.40 in the afternoon, uniform Denver police officers were driving Mark Denver police vehicles through the east side of the parking lot of 888 South Oneida Street. The officers were conducting extra patrol at the Cedar Run apartment complex, which is a large multifamily residential building at that location. The officers, while along the east side of the complex, observed a male in the northeast corner of the parking lot next to a pickup truck. They recognized or they observed specifically that the doors on the driver's side of the vehicle were open and the individual was moving boxes around outside of the vehicle. As an officer approached in his vehicle, he observed the subject had an unholstered handgun between his belt and pants on the back side of his waistband. The officer contacted the subject for unlawfully carrying a weapon as openly carrying a firearm in Denver is prohibited. The uniformed officers that were there exited their vehicles, identified themselves as Denver police officers, and ordered the subject to keep his hands in the air and away from the firearm. The subject did not comply with these orders and became argumentative. Officers continued to direct the subject to put his hands on his head and get down to his knees, which he refused to obey. Officers worked to deescalate the situation through ongoing communication efforts. One specific officer worked for just over four minutes to engage the subject in conversation in an effort to gain his compliance. While the officer was speaking to the subject, he abruptly reached to his back waistband area where the firearm was located. Two additional officers who were at the location observed this action and were specifically concerned that the subject would retrieve the firearm and shoot at the officers. In response, these two officers discharged their duty handguns at the subject striking him. The subject fell to the ground and officers quickly approached. The officer secured the subject and recovered the firearm from his back waistband. They rendered aid until paramedics arrived, and the ambulance crew transported the subject to the hospital for treatment. Through the investigation, it was learned that two uniformed Denver police officers discharged their weapons a total of five times. The firearm that was recovered from the subject was a Glock 17 9-millimeter handgun. The firearm was loaded with one round in the chamber and 16 rounds in the magazine. The magazine and the firearm had a capacity of 17 rounds. The subject has been identified as 32-year-old Zachary Yates. Mr. Yates was treated for two gunshot wounds and has since been released from the hospital. Mr. Yates was charged with unlawful carrying of a firearm for openly carrying a firearm in Denver. He was also charged with possessing a high-capacity magazine that could hold more than 15 rounds, which is prohibited by ordinance. The officers who discharged their weapons are assigned to the patrol division in District 3. Both were wearing Denver police uniforms and driving marked police vehicles. One officer started with the department in 2017 and was involved in a police shooting in 2018. The other officer has been with the department since 2019 and has not been involved in a prior police shooting incident. Both officers or all the officers that were at the scene had their body-worn cameras activated, and it captured their interaction with the individual throughout the contact. The involved officers in this incident will be placed on a modified duty status as they complete the departments reintegration program. And as in the other incident, we utilized our critical incident investigative protocol with our partner agencies. Anybody who had information about this case who may have witnessed it that investigators haven't talked to, I would encourage to contact the Denver Police Department or Crime Stoppers and provide additional information, which would be helpful for us. I will briefly show some slides for this. So here's some still shots from body camera that I'll show in case you either haven't seen the video or choose not to watch the video. This is a screenshot from the contact officer. As he was approaching, the black pickup truck is the subject's vehicle. The subject is outside of the vehicle at this point. And the officer from this perspective is looking directly at the back of the subject. And by doing so, it's difficult to see, but I'll call out specifically this area by his waistband. The handle of the firearm is up, and the barrel and muzzle are pointing down to the ground. That is secured between his belt and his pants. There's no holster or any other type of retention device holding that firearm in place there. This is the view of one of the involved officers who's not having direct communication but is providing assistance at that location. He has a specific view of the right side of the subject there. At this point, this frame, the subject's arms are up. He would not keep them in the air, kept moving them around. In the next frame, three seconds later, the subject's hand has now moved behind his back in a way that the officers believed he was preparing and was attempting to grab the firearm from there. This is just a couple frames prior to the firearms being discharged. As the officers approached, after the subject was struck, here's a screenshot of the way that the firearm was held in the back of the subject's waistband. As you can see, again, unholstered and clearly visible, and that's what the officers reported seeing as they approached. And the firearm that we recovered again is a 9-millimeter Glock 17 handgun. Any questions about this incident? The officers fired, because one seemed surprised. So the officers that fired, the view that we're looking at, the officer on the right side of the screen, the officer who was communicating with the subject is more positioned directly behind the subject's vehicle there. This one, the one on the far right of our screen, were involved, and then the one across directly behind is not involved. He was the one communicating with the subject. This is a apartment complex, a large apartment complex near Leedsdale and Oneida. What was your shot, those two shots? In the upper neck kind of area, one shot, and then he had a graze wound to his arm. So is that according to you guys training, because you feel trapped, you just go and shoot somebody? Or how is the process? Sure, so the officers believed that he was attempting to retrieve that firearm. He had been non-compliant the four minutes prior, where they attempted to get his compliance, to get him to keep his hands in the air on his head, away from that firearm. He wouldn't get down on his knees. And then that, coupled with the specific movement, as you watch the video, you'll see the specific movement where that hand previously had not gone back behind the back. The officers reported that was specifically concerning to them, feeling that he was attempting to retrieve that firearm, and despite their orders and direction not to do so. And that caused him to fear that he was going to take an action that would cause them harm. Do you think I have any criminal history or record? So we don't speak to criminal histories during these briefings? Yes, ma'am? About a minute in the body warm camera one, you can hear the suspect say, I'm a suicidal disabled veteran. Go ahead. Kind of move into go ahead and shoot me. Continuing the question on training, is this in line with problem mental health training in terms of de-escalation, or trying to provide some form of help to someone who could possibly be in mental distress? So I believe that their actions were, in line with training, I mean, there was, I think, a significant attempt, four and a half minute attempt, to de-escalate, to establish a report with him. I think you hear an officer asking about military service. So I think they're really trying to connect with him and get him to comply, get him to understand that they are not a threat to him. They just need him to safely comply with their directions. And then he, all of a sudden, makes that sudden movement that puts everybody, I think, at risk. Was the guy from Colorado? He did, yeah, he's been in Colorado for a period of time. He wasn't new to the area. And now, fully aware of the laws about firearms and things like that, can you explain a little bit why having a firearm is illegal if we have a second amendment to the Constitution? Certainly. So it wasn't the fact that he possessed the weapon. It was the fact that it was openly displayed like that. And so that is illegal. And that's the reason for, I mean, their attention was drawn to him for other reasons. But once they saw that he had that firearm, I think that it was wise for them to make safe contact, try to recover that firearm, and then investigate further exactly what's going on. Yes, ma'am? We know he doesn't live there, but it's really easy that he had some connections to that apartment, maybe? Correct. Is it clear now what he was doing there that day? Not entirely clear. As we said, he did have some association with a resident there. And so I believe that that was his vehicle. And I think what was observed prior to the officer's making contact is him throwing articles from the cab portion of his vehicle into the trash. Can you say how long the officers who shot him will be on modified duty? Unknown. I mean, I would say at least two or three months. And so there's a specific protocol that we go through making sure that we address any trauma that may come from them being involved in a critical incident. Yes? In the body camp footage, the officer says that there is high gating activity in that area. Is there any connection that you might know between any gating and the? No, not at all. Any particular explanation of why the guy wasn't shot in his arm or his leg at that time? Well, because that's honestly not part of our training. I mean, our training is certainly to shoot center mass. That's I think the largest target. So the most likely that we'll be able to strike a person and capacitate them and then be able to render the situation safe. Just to confirm, he was struck five times? No, he was struck twice. Five rounds were fired. Yes, ma'am. How far away were those two officers that shot him? They were approximately 30 to 40 feet away from him at that point. How many officers responded to this? So initially there was two present, a third arrived, and I think in the end there was five officers present. Object die unseen or die in custody? This subject's still alive. He was been released from the hospital. Yes, sir? Well, officers agree that an officer is, he seems surprised. So I can't speak to officers' perceptions, certainly. But I think that obviously the one officer that you see here, he's the one that's primarily engaged in the dialogue. And so his focus is on the individual trying to maintain eye contact and maintain a dialogue. Whereas the other officers, I think, were looking at his hands, recognizing that his hands are the threat and being able to access that weapon or a threat. And then when they see him after being told numerous times to put his hands on his head, and he's kind of got his hands here where they're visible, certainly not compliant, but certainly not in a dangerous position. But then when he makes that very quick movement behind his back, I think it's a reasonable assumption that he's going to retrieve that weapon. And that is when the two officers that perceive that action and recognize that that is exactly where that gun is, that that's when they fire. He was taken into custody for display of our arm when the open carry is prohibited. So what are the charges that he may face at that time? So he will be in jail, he will be fined. So specifically he's been charged with the revised municipal code violations for unlawful carry of a firearm and prohibited possession of a high capacity magazine. The magazine he had had the ability to carry 17 rounds and the limit is 15. The magazine was he, his drug, or he, his gun. That was in the gun that he had in his waistband. Has there been any mental health evaluation or anything like that? So it's not something we typically speak to in these briefings. Any other questions? Can you just kind of wrap it all up in a nice big bow? Your general reaction to how everything was handled here? You know, I am pleased with the officer's actions. I think that they took a significant amount of time to deescalate that situation. I don't believe that any officer wanted to fire in this particular case and took a lot of precautions to try to get this to end peacefully. And we certainly wish that that would have happened. And I think that's our communication to other people is we know that we're gonna encounter armed individuals in the future, and when that happens, we would certainly prefer that they follow the officer's directions and not make furtive or threatening motions that cause us to take those kinds of actions. So thank you. I understand that what are the best practices that you can recommend for people to follow even if they think that their rights are being violated by the cops? Yeah, good question. Again, I think that the best advice that I could provide is to follow the instructions that you're given. And if you feel as though your rights have been violated, there's certainly avenues in order to pursue that. Thank you.