Why a $30M settlement, but no criminal charges in Konoa Wilson case?

KPBS On Demand is supported by the San Diego County Toyota Dealers. The updated all-hybrid Camry combines technology, performance, and a modern design with features supporting a connected driver's experience. Visit your Toyota dealer or toyota.com. Toyota, we make it easy.

Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman on this episode of KPBS Midday Edition, a close look at police accountability and use of deadly force. This is KPBS Midday Edition, connecting our communities through conversation. Nine months ago, the San Diego City Council paid a historic civil settlement of $30 million to the family of Kanoa Wilson. A police officer shot and killed the 16-year-old as he was running for his life. But earlier this month, the district attorney's office announced that no criminal charges will be filed against Daniel Gold, the officer who killed Kanoa. Some community members are questioning that decision. Earlier this week, I spoke with Tasha Williamson, a community advocate.

They did not depend on the jury they always depend on. That is a court process. Jurors make the decision, not the DAs. The DAs provide the evidence. And in this case, with a black 16-year-old child, they didn't allow it. Had that child been white, had that been a white grandmother, gold would be charged.

Well, we had more questions about the discrepancy between such a large civil settlement and the absence of criminal charges, though no liability was admitted. So I want to bring in Paul Parker. He's former director of the City's Commission on Police Practices, or CPP, an oversight board for the police department. He's also former executive officer of the county's Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board, better known as CLRB. Paul, welcome back to Midday Edition.

Thank you for having me, Jade.

Glad to have you here. So what was your initial reaction to the news that Officer Gold will face no criminal charges?

Well, my initial reaction, to be honest with you, I was a little shocked. But then when I read the district attorney's letter and her rationale for doing so, I put my independent oversight hat on and my experience with oversight and understood how she came to that decision. And we can talk more about that, I'm sure.

Yes, please. So, you know, I guess my first question about that is the use of deadly force and why the officer deemed it necessary. How did she weigh that?

Well, it looks as if she waited basically like she was supposed to. It's a reasonable officer standard. That's number one. It's not someone who's not an officer. It's a reasonable officer standard based upon the totality of the circumstances. Now, what's listed as evidence in the letter is what Officer Gold heard the other officer say and his interpretation of that. His hearing the gunshots is then immediately confronting Gold. the young man as he came through the breezeway. According to what's documented in that letter from the district attorney, those are the facts that that officer was using that was part of the totality of the circumstances that he used, that he demonstrated, enunciated when he was explaining why he used deadly force.

And so do you think that that is a fair legal standard?

Well, as far as whether it's