White Officer Involved in Fatal California Shooting Was Once Charged With an Off-Duty Hate Crime

The victim’s family seeks answers from the Barstow Police Department.

Relatives of Diante Yarber appear with their attorney at a press conference on April 23, 2018.James Quigg

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

One of the officers involved in the April 5 shooting death of an unarmed black man in a Walmart parking lot in Barstow, California, was previously charged with an off-duty hate crime, fired from the police force, and later reinstated, according to information from news reports, police statements, and claims by an attorney for the family of the 26-year-old shooting victim, Diante Yarber.

In the earlier incident, a white Barstow officer named Jimmy Alfred Walker, then 30, was charged with one misdemeanor count of violating a man’s civil rights, two counts of battery, and one count of disturbing the peace following an August 2010 off-duty fracas in which Walker allegedly assaulted a man and a woman outside a bar, the Los Angeles Times reported: “After deputies arrived and in their presence, he then allegedly directed racial epithets toward the man.” The race of the victims was unavailable at the time, the Times noted, but Walker was charged under a hate crime statute that makes it illegal to use force against another person because of their race or other immutable characteristics.

A local news website, the San Bernadino County Sentinel, reported that Walker was fired in 2013 “as a delayed consequence of an August 2010 incident” and that he had ultimately pleaded guilty to lesser charges of fighting in public and public intoxication, and had received probation. The Sentinel, which added that the allegedly assaulted couple were African American, also reported that Walker eventually filed a successful motion to have all charges dismissed and that an administrative judge, in an arbitration hearing, determined that Walker’s conduct, being off-duty and outside Barstow, did not warrant losing his badge—Walker was reinstated with two years’ back pay. (Attempts to reach Officer Walker were unsuccessful.)

The Yarber family’s attorney, Lee Merritt held a press conference last week saying his sources had identified one of the officers who responded to the fatal call as Jimmy (or Jimmie) Alfred Walker. On Monday, the Barstow Police Department finally confirmed Walker’s involvement but said state law prevented the release of any details from his personnel file. The other officers on the scene were Jose Barrientos, Vincent Carrillo, and Mathew Helms, the department said. According to news reports, Merritt cited witness accounts saying one of the officers had shouted a racial slur—”(Expletive) we’re gonna kill you”—at Yarber and his passengers. The police department did not comment on that claim.

Yarber was killed early last month after police fired 30 shots at his car, which had at least two passengers inside. Officers had responded to a call about a “suspicious” vehicle parked in a Walmart lot. According to reports, the license plate number given to the police indicated that the car was registered to Yarber, whom police suspected of involvement in a stolen-car incident the month before. When they tried to detain him, police said, Yarber twice put the car in reverse and backed toward the officers, striking two cruisers. A cellphone video of part of the incident shows Yarber’s car backing out of a parking space, apparently trying to get away, as officers appear to fire on the vehicle.

An independent autopsy commissioned by Yarber’s family determined that he was struck 10 times. His cause of death was asphyxiation—he choked on his own blood, Merritt told reporters, and his life might have been saved had officers rendered prompt medical attention. The family intends to sue the city, he said.

An August 2017 investigation by the Washington Post found that of nearly 1,900 officers fired from major police departments for misconduct since 2006, nearly a quarter of them got their jobs back after going through arbitration. “It’s demoralizing, but not just to the chief,” former Philadelphia police chief Charles Ramsey told the newspaper. “It’s demoralizing to the rank and file who really don’t want to have those kinds of people in their ranks.”

“It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public,” he added. “Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate