California murderer who shot deputy, killed chaplain at age 24 granted 'youth offender' parole | Fox News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Derek Eugene Pettis, a 24-year-old gang member, found himself handcuffed in the back seat of a squad car after a drunken bar fight in 1994, but the Los Angeles deputy who placed him there wasn't going to bring him to jail.
Deputy Terrence Wenger, 31, and volunteer chaplain Bruce Bryan, a 39-year-old in the car on a ride-along, took Pettis home to sober up.
Rather than thank them, Pettis hit Wenger over the head as soon as he was free from his handcuffs.
"They took him home instead of taking him to jail, and that's the hardest part to understand," Bryan's brother, Floyd Bryan, told Fox News Digital. "They dropped him off a block from where he lived, and when he got out he hit the deputy, grabbed his gun and shot him in the head."
Pettis received a sentence of life in prison with a chance for parole after 40 years, Bryan said. Now, after an update to state laws on "youth offender" status, Pettis has been granted parole more than a decade earlier than the family expected.
Back on June 18, 1994, Pettis grabbed the gun from an unconscious Wenger and fired multiple shots at him, but only one struck - costing the deputy an eye. Then the killer turned on Bryan, who tried to flee.
"He chased my brother, shot him in the back," Floyd Bryan said. "He had a vest on, so as he was on his knees trying to get up, he shot him again straight down between his shoulder there where there wasn't a vest and killed him."
Pettis on some level knew Bryan, according to his brother. He was in the same gang as another man who lived next door to where the ordained minister ran a youth mission for troubled young men and boys.
In addition to his work as a volunteer chaplain, Bruce Bryan ran a mission for troubled youths at his own home and got them work in a gardening business, according to his brother, Floyd. He said some of the men in this photo grew up to work in the computer industry.(Floyd Bryan)
Pettis, now 54, was captured, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He first became eligible for parole in 2018 and was finally granted it at a Sept. 6 parole board hearing, records show.
But under the original sentence, Pettis shouldn't have been eligible for another 11 years, the victim's brother said. State laws have been revised, raising the age of "youth offender" status several times over the past few decades, from 18 to 23 and now 26. The killer was 24 at the time, and the status has been applied retroactively, he said.
"I just have a major problem with the law changes affecting people of this nature," Bryan told Fox News Digital. "This was a violent crime. This is the top of violent crimes other than maybe rape. Anybody who shoots anybody in law enforcement is really making a statement that they don't care who they kill because if you're going to kill law enforcement, you're going to kill anybody."
Furthermore, he said, deputies and prosecutors were banned from speaking at the parole board hearing.
Under state law, the board's decision will go to Gov. Gavin Newsom for review, and supporters of law enforcement and the Bryan family are hoping he overrules it.
"In all cases, the Governor carefully reviews parole cases to determine whether a parole grant is consistent with public safety," Newsom's office said in a statement. "This process can take up to 150 days."
"We're going to call him a youthful offender? That is not what anybody intended," said John Lewin, a longtime deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County and a vocal critic of soft-on-crime progressive policies. "This is a guy who intentionally and violently executed a chaplain, who was begging for his life and was not even a police officer."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, above, will have final say over whether Derek Pettis can be freed on parole for the murder of Los Angeles volunteer chaplain Bruce Bryan.(AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli / File)
Under one of those policies, put in place by Lewin's boss, District Attorney George Gascon, prosecutors are not allowed to be present at parole hearings or argue against the release of a convict.
That puts a crippling burden on victims or their families who argue against release. Defense attorneys and members of the parole commission are all given access to the defendant's case file, including a psychological evaluation, Lewin said. Prosecutors would have that, too, if they were present, but family members don't.
"Family members, they don't have half the information, so it means that they can't make coherent arguments," he said. "In addition, you don't have anybody who is up there representing the victims and representing society at large."
According to a memorial plaque at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Carson Station, Bryan earned the nickname "Chaplain of the Hood" because he spent so much time counseling youthful offenders on the hood of a squad car.
"Chaplain Bruce was a full time service volunteer doing the work of God," the Carson Station said in a 2016 tribute to the slain minister. "He visited youthful offenders at juvenile detention facilities, opened his home to troubled men and participated in ride-alongs several times a week."
Bryan ran a nonprofit halfway house for troubled juveniles out of his home, his brother said. He offered them jobs at a gardening business and helped them get back into school or find new careers.
The Los Angeles Times reported shortly after his murder that he was engaged to be married when he died.
"An individual who's this cold-hearted, who is this brutal, this maniacal, we're going to let him free?" Lewin added. "What happens when he gets mad at the next person?"
As for Wenger, he lost an eye but survived after major surgery and returned to work at the sheriff's department until he retired years later.
In a statement to the parole board published by the Los Angeles news site The Current Report, the survivor called the double shooting "extremely vicious, sadistic and cruel" and argued against Pettis' release. However, Bryan said he does not recall it being read aloud at the hearing.
"How can we know this evil will not again erupt following a sudden outburst of anger on his part?" Wenger wrote. "It happened once, and there is zero guarantee it won't happen again."
Bryan is worried about the same thing, especially if Pettis falls back into his old vices.
"I'm beside myself even talking about it," he said. "I really have a problem if he gets out and hurts somebody because it doesn't take much to have a drink or do drugs."
Michael Ruiz is a reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to michael.ruiz@fox.com and on Twitter: @mikerreports
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
390 visitors
Is everybody in Cali freaking NUTS or something?
Newsome should be removed from office if he allows this travesty of justice to occur.
The fact that it even CAN occur is testimony to how whacked out Cali is.
Damn, it makes me glad I don't live there.
Maybe they just needed a Soros-backed DA and then the guy probably would have just got off scot-free.
SMH at the insanity.
And one of the many reasons I don't live in CA.
The Youth Offender rules are based on extensive science, which has concluded that human brains are typically not fully developed until our late 20s. They lack the thoughtfulness, restraint, and resistance to peer pressure that more mature people possess.
Both the California Supreme Court (and legislature) and the US Supreme Court have, therefore, recognized the reduced culpability of youth offenders.
Still, it's kind of a hard thing for people to wrap their heads around. We put so much adult responsibility on 18+ or 21+ people, and we forget they often lack the maturity to handle it well. Data shows the age of people when they are sentenced to prison falls off pretty dramatically after the 20s.
All jurisdictions treat minors and adults differently. The only difference here is where a state draws the actual line.
Based on science. huh.
Ok, I might buy that if we didn't also pretend that those youths are perfectly capable of making decisions about abortion and what gender they want to be.
it is very inconsistent.
If we are going to treat them as adults, it should extend to accepting the same punishments older people get when convicted.
That is very true, but that's a fault in politics, not the science.
I see no good point to molly-coddling criminals or pretending they are too undeveloped to know what they were doing and shouldn't bear the full brunt of the law.
Do the crime, do the time!
" extensive science, which has concluded that human brains are typically not fully developed until our late 20s. They lack the thoughtfulness, restraint, and resistance to peer pressure that more mature people possess."
That begs the question. are they developed enough to be allowed to vote?
I think if we could start all over with the knowledge that we have, we would have the legal age for an adult set at 25.
As it stands, the cat is already well out of the bag.
I think that might have been more palatable if some of the same people supporting this stuff didn't also claim that minors are mature and developed enough to make life-altering decisions about having abortions or changing genders.
Hell, we let people younger than 26 marry, work, drink, smoke, pay taxes, drive, own guns, buy property, have kids and enter into contracts.
if they are mature enough to handle all that, they can certainly do the time if they commit the crime.
I think if we could start all over, we would emphasize education and parenting.
Yeah, I think it’s fine because voting can be seen as more of an academic exercise. I feel like it’s not the same process as deciding whether or not to use a gun in anger.
On this point, as you probably know, we changed the Constitution so 18 year olds can vote. The feeling was that if an 18 year old can go die for his country, he should be allowed to vote. Fair enough, but one of the things that makes 18 year olds such useful soldiers is that their young brains are more easily manipulated than a 28 year old’s. Additionally, they have not yet developed their own sense of mortality. They still think nothing bad will ever happen to them.
So, then do you oppose all the juvenile systems we have in place? Would you allow the death penalty or life in prison for a 10 year-old? If so, then the problem is solved for all people for all situations, but don’t expect that to be popular. What about 12? 14? 16?
The fact is we draw lines, but should they be arbitrary or based on something that reasonably connects to the person and their actions? In my opinion, 18 is arbitrary. So is 21. At least this law in California is an attempt to connect it to something reasonable that actually reflects what is going on with the accused/convicted person. That sounds more like justice.
Nope.
Nobody is talking about 10 year old kids.
I think by age 16 people know right from wrong--if not before that.
If we allow kids to do adult things, then treat them as such or don't let the do adult things.
When a 16 year old commits a murder, I have no problem with charging them as an adult.
This case involved someone 24 years old at the time he committed a murder and attempted murder of a peace officer. He was a known gang member. Fuck the scumbag.
Well knowing at 16 you’re not your biological sex is way different than knowing that murder is wrong.
Gascon, another Soros bought and paid for DA in Californicationland serving the people of LA and upholding justice!/s
Californians are a very strange lot.
Someone age 26 is considered too "youthful" to accept full responsibility for their actions, but kids should be allowed to transform themselves at any age or have abortions at any age without parental notice.
I concur, but States rights aren't just for states we agree with. This too is one of the reasons I'm a Federalist.
Oh, I know they CAN do it.
What I am curious is WHY the idiots did it.
Smoke enough bong hits and it come to you.
Even sky-high my brain can not fathom such idiocy.
When the consequences approach equaling the crime … crime will go down
In a state where it is acceptable for people to shit and piss and openly do drugs in the streets, I think justice will find rough going.
Our society recognizes that not all choices are the same. We already have different ages for different privileges and responsibilities. You can drive at 16, but you can’t vote or be in the military until 18. You can’t drink until you’re 21. Generally, you can’t rent a car until you’re 25.
So we look at what is required to make a good choice in a specific situation. How can we hold someone responsible for a choice they don’t understand? All of the choices I listed above can impact other people. For decisions that are very personal and don’t impact the rest of society, I think we should allow for the possibility that a young person is capable of making that decision. But I think that requires an individual assessment, not a generalized one.
We are wasting entirely too much money on heinous, beyond a reasonable doubt crimes.
Time to start whacking and stacking those criminals. Crime will go down.
Significantly.
It is Cali, so not much chance of that ever happening.
Too many left-wing flakes electing Soros-backed idiots and supporting a lousy governor.
That isn't historically true. Creating stable communities does far more to lower crime rates. Good education, good jobs, good homes, good medical and mental health and a sense of community are far, far, far more effective. CA isn't all that great in most of those areas either.
So how is that working out so far?
Effective punishment has a role in it too.
It doesn't seem to be working out, because no one wants to pay for poor people OR have poor people living near them. The stats don't lie though. Richer, more stable communities have less crime. A study in Chicago of 2 adjacent neighborhoods with similar socio-economic status showed the one that got city home improvement grants and opened an afterschool community center run by volunteers lowered their crime rate and raised their health rates significantly.
Make no mistakes - liberals are just as bad as anyone else in fixing issues like affordable housing.
"Effective punishment" is sort of vague, is it not? What's effective punishment? If it's NOT raising youth offender ages to 26 I'd most likely agree. Effective to me are things that actually demonstrate a reduction in crime and get productive people back into society. I don't care where the idea comes from if it's shown to work.
It’s not for lack of throwing money at it. Public welfare spending as a percentage of budgets has grown significantly since 1977.
Simply throwing money at it isn’t the answer.
And that is a very sound principle.
One funds solutions, not problems. If there is not a well-conceived solution, throwing money at the problem will almost certainly fail.
You're correct. It takes work and cooperation which is why these initiatives often fail.
Yep along with initiative and accountability.
Two traits sorely missing these days. Hell, we have an entire union asking for a 32 hour work week for 40 hours pay.
We are well and truly screwed with thinking like that.
“we have an entire union asking for a 32 hour work week for 40 hours pay.”
And that is not even close to being commensurate with the executive compensation who thrive at their workers expense.
Such sound reasoning ……
Look at the company profits, the management bonuses, the annual salaries of executives, etc. and get back to me.
do those people get paid to not work?
that is what the union is asking for.
For sure! Accountability seems to have gone right out the window with ALL politicians.
As I said in that thread there is good recent data to suggest it improves productivity, but that wasn't in assembly line work. It would have to be tested. Fun fact, Richard Nixon was a champion of the 4 day work week.
No, we are well and truly screwed trying the same things over and over again expecting the same results. That 4 day work week will come, but not yet. When the youngest of today's workers are in positions of power they will make that change.
It's not so much about the pay, but a healthy work/life balance at a livable wage. Younger workers grew up with my generation that worked 60 to 80 hour weeks and had nothing to show for it except high therapy bills and diabetes.
when the CEO makes in a day what the average worker makes in 1.5 years, there's a problem...
Not needed, see 3.2.8, apply liberally, lather, rinse and repeat as necessary.
Yep and costs of production will go up. Translating to higher costs to consumers.
Blue collar jobs like the UAW or UA just aren’t wired that way. At 32 hours for 40 hours pay, consumers will lose. You simply can’t “invent” more production to make it pay. And if you can, you should already be shit canning a lot of non-productive people. Folks like that will pull the same production killing shenanigans at 32 hours. Making costs go up even further.
I worked in the UA and managed UA workers for nearly 40 years. I know what I speak of. If you think cars cost a lot now …. Hold on to your hats if the UAW gets it’s way.
Only in a Marxist state.
Sure, but I'm not talking about that in the context of a shorter work week.
Not necessarily and not significantly either. There are a lot of variables there to be so caviler.
The same people (and this isn't just for UAW) aren't consumers?
It's a fact that happier healthier people are more productive and more efficient.
Oh...yeah... we used to call this, "The whippings and beatings will continue until moral improves." It is the attituded that ferments unionization in the first place. Burn out is a real thing and it effects all areas of labor. It also effects health and family dynamics too. A 4 day work week gives parents more time with their children, more time to go out and do things and that will spread money around some markets more easily.
UV autos will be cheaper to produce than gas powered cars by 2027. The larger electric vehicles like trucks will be at production parity by 2026. This is before any government subsidies might kick in. So, no I don't anticipate any sharp increase in car pricing if the UAW gets their way.
Lol ah yes, the government subsidy money tree.
Kicking the can down the road for generations.
Meh. We used to call it. Do your job and quit screwing off.
Opinions do vary. I have little doubt production costs will go up for many products and consumer prices will follow but at that point, the horse will already be out of the barn. Never to return.
At least UAW members will be able to afford the price increases. Other folks? Not so much.
The US court system has become just a catch and release system for youthful felons as our laws are enacted in favor of the criminals. The criminals know this and laugh at law enforcement.
California, in its infinite wisdom, has expanded the "youthful offender' status to people as old as 26 years.
It's a damn shame that politicians are far more concerned about molly-coddling criminals and far more concerned about "fair" treatment of criminals with little to no regard for victims.
And people are still voting for Soros-backed idiots for DAs.