At around 9 p.m. on Nov. 19, 2015, plaintiffs’ decedent Nathaniel Pickett Jr., an unemployed 29 year old, was being pursued on foot by Deputy Kyle Woods at the El Rancho Motel, in Barstow, where Pickett recently moved. During the pursuit, Woods shot Pickett in the chest, and Pickett died at the scene. Following the shooting, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department issued a press release that stated that Pickett had a history of resisting arrest and that Pickett had refused to comply with Woods’ repeated verbal demands to stop hitting him and move away. Pickett was unarmed and allegedly mentally ill. The decedent’s mother, Dominic Archibald, and his father, Nathaniel Pickett I, sued Woods and Woods’ employer, the county of San Bernardino. The decedent’s parents alleged that Woods’ actions constituted excessive force in violation of the decedent’s rights and a deliberate indifference to the decedent’s rights, per Civil Code § 52.1 (the Bane Act). They also alleged that the county was liable for Woods’ actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel presented video surveillance from the motel that captured the shooting. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, the video showed the decedent running from Woods, tripping in the motel corridor, sitting on the ground, and scooting backward as Woods approached him with a Taser drawn. The video also showed Woods holster his Taser, try to detain the decedent on the ground, grab the decedent from behind, and punch the decedent several times before taking out his gun and shooting the decedent twice in the chest. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the decedent was mentally ill and had been receiving treatment for his illness since his early 20s. Counsel asserted that Woods was negligent in his use of unreasonable tactics while attempting to detain the decedent without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Counsel also asserted that Woods was negligent for unnecessarily escalating the encounter, failing to use appropriate tactics to de-escalate the situation, and using excessive and unreasonable force, including deadly force, on the unarmed decedent. The plaintiffs’ police practices expert opined that a reasonable officer in Woods’ position, acting consistent with standard police practices, would not have escalated what should have been a consensual encounter into a detention and arrest without justification. The expert also opined that a reasonable officer in Woods’ position, acting consistent with standard police practices, would not have used excessive and/or unreasonable force, including deadly force, against the decedent. The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office concluded that the shooting was justified. In a 40-page report, county prosecutors stated that the decedent’s conduct gave Woods, who had stopped the decedent to question him in the motel parking lot, reason to believe that the decedent was trespassing, was under the influence of a controlled substance, and had given Woods a false name. Woods claimed that he was on patrol when he saw the decedent looking back at him several times as he crossed a street. When the decedent disappeared, Woods surmised that the decedent had jumped a fence into the motel parking lot and followed, jumping the fence himself. Woods claimed that when he approached, the decedent gave him a false name and spelled his last name “Piggett.” Woods also claimed that the decedent appeared to be under the influence because he was twitching and had a white coating on his tongue and that when he tried to detain him, the decedent ran. Woods further claimed that during an ensuing scuffle, the decedent mounted him and punched him multiple times. Defense counsel contended that the decedent resisted arrest and assaulted Woods, fracturing Woods’ nasal bone and causing Woods to hit his head on the cement several times. Counsel also contended that the decedent attempted to grab Woods’ gun, which caused Woods to feel that “he was in a life or death struggle with [the decedent].” Thus, defense counsel argued that Woods’ actions were justified. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel noted that photographs had been taken of Woods an hour after the incident. Counsel argued that despite Woods saying that he was punched in the face more than 10 times, Woods had no visible , as shown by the photographs. Plaintiffs’ counsel further contended that the video recording did not show the decedent throwing any punches and that witnesses did not see the decedent grabbing Woods’ gun. In addition, counsel contended that Woods waited 28 days before giving a statement about the incident., Nathaniel Pickett Jr., 29, sustained a gunshot wound to his chest and was pronounced dead at the scene. He was survived by his parents. Pickett, known as Nathaniel Pickett II, lived with both parents in his early years. He lived and worked with his father most of his young adult life, and lived with his mother for most of his life. After his parents divorced, Pickett saw his father on a regular basis when he returned to the Los Angeles area, where Pickett lived with his grandparents. Prior to the fatal shooting, Pickett had moved to the El Rancho Motel to be close to his father. Thus, the decedent’s parents sought recovery of wrongful death damages for the loss of their son.