Federal judge grants jury trial in Bryan Jones wrongful death suit

In a huge leap forward for the family of Bryan Jones, a federal judge has agreed to let a jury weigh in on the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Jones family.
Melissa Topey
Mar 14, 2012


In a huge leap forward for the family of Bryan Jones, a federal judge has agreed to let a jury weigh in on the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Jones family.

Sandusky County Sheriff's deputies fatally shot Bryan on July 11, 2010, inside the family's home. They were called to the home by Bryan's parents after he threatened to shoot his mother.

Bryan was passed out or sleeping on the couch and was alone inside the home when deputies entered quietly. He had a shotgun in his lap. Deputies tossed a flash-bang grenade on the floor to disorient him, but Bryan abruptly woke up and raised his gun toward deputies, according to court documents.

Click here for an index to related articles. 

Deputies Mario Calvillo and Jose Calvillo, who are brothers, fired nine shots that struck Bryan in the head, chest and arm.

The Jones family has maintained that the sheriff's office made no attempt to exhaust other options before entering the home and shooting Bryan.

A jury will ultimately decide if deputies were in the wrong that night.

For the full story, pick up Wednesday's Register.



If we are going to post this innocent looking photo of Bwian, how about also posting his arrest and conviction record.


 he raised his gun toward the deputies they did their job and what they are trained to do and he threatened to shoot his mother. this family is delusional i hope they dont get one red cent if they do its just another miscarriage of the judicial system.

Texx Reloader

That is exactly what one would say following the "official" version of events. However, even one of the detectives wrote the report it was not done correctly. No amount of money can replace a human life, and I am not so sure money should even be awarded except "money talks." If there was a way to bring change without punitive damages, I would say go for it. But if and when it is proven that he was killed due to negligence and improper procedures, how is that any different than a lawsuit brought against a drunk driver who mowed him down in the street regardless of his personal past? If we are to start valuing human life according to personal feelings of worth of that life, it is a slippery slope. The problem with our society is that it is NOT a problem until it effects them directly, then it is too late. We have seen that all before in history.


monkeyman...... you are an idiot!


Texx Reloader

SimpleEnough: You are mssing the whole point. No one is defending Jone's previous behavior. The issue was proper procedure followed which could have avoided this death. If you wish to live in a society where people are gunned down without a trial, I suggest moving over with the Afgan's or to Iraq or China. Anyone can see there is a problem with that organization on a very deep level. In the past few years it has been scandal after scandal from that department. In this case someone of less than desireable character was hurt, but many people of good character citizens and officers have been hurt by them, so these people silently cheer this decision. They are hopeful this trial provides an opportunity to bring this evilness to the light of day. Law Enforcement deal with situations like Brian Jones all over the country on a daily basis without the death of the person. Many of these people receive help and go on to live productive lives. No one is saying that would have been the case with Brian because no one can say exactly what any human being will do with the chances they are given. However, I do know one thing. In THIS country we have law enforcement, we have prosecutors, and we have judges. We also have prisons and people who put others to death at the order of the state. They have very specific jobs. Anytime this system does not work well, it is in the best interest of the citizens of this country to look into it very closely. If you value your freedom you will agree. The family will win this lawsuit because it WILL be proven the decisions made that night were not made according to proper police procedure, but to a host of personal, arrogant, and downright disrepect for people who do not "fit their ideal of social acceptance." If you study out the history of law enforcement you will see every major buch of garbage had to be changed through litigation. A woman who begged police for help from an abusive ex was laughed at and ignored. Her ex chased her down and stabbed her to death. 100,000,000 dollars latter Law Enforcement "saw the light," and dometic violence was taken seriously. I have no pity for those people. They are bigoted, arrogant, and have mocked social justice for far too long. Let justice be served!


monkeyman - you are taking one single piece of information way out of context - there was absolutely no reason to use the flash-bang grenade in the first place. That was done to purposely startle him to create a situatoin where they could shoot to kill - and 9 shots??? Up until that time - they could have arrested him with out incident. They actually stood in the window for almost an hour watching his sleep - he was passed out drunk.

I just don't see any other outcome than the family getting something - regardless of what it is.

Texx Reloader

Bunch of cowards: ..it just makes me sick...to see a man carryin' two pistols and a Henry rifle and cryin' like a damned baby...I can't abide them kind. You see them in the tavern, you know, tramps and drunk teamsters and crazed miners...sportin' their pistols and actin' like they was bad men but without any sand or character. Not even any bad character. I do not like assassins...or men of low character..


His parents could have not called cops, they could have not left him stay in a home where firearms where available, he could have came out of the house peacefully. The police could have waited him out, could have not used flash bangs. But in the end this is the way it ended probably with some faults on both sides. But as far as them being able to receive compensation for their troubled kid who also had no regard for life (remeber he fired into a house with people in it to try and intimitate them) is crazy. As far as the nine shots go police are trained when its time to shoot do it and that means making sure the threat is eliminated.


Bigdad - I would agree with you in some of what you said - but the problem here is that it was the police that created that threat they eliminated.  The parents had the right to call the cops - they did let him stay in the house for a couple of hours - and he couldn' thave come out of the house, he was passed out in a drunken stuper and was absolutely no threat for that whole time they were watching him thru the window.

The police definitely had set their sites on eliminating him and if they had to create a situation to do that, they were intended on doing just that.  And it's exactly wha tthey did.


If the guy was "sleeping or passed out"  when they arrived why didn't they go up to him and take the gun??? Instead they wake him up??? I could understand approaching him with there guns drawn while they took the gun, but come on! Common sense should of told them if he was not awake, don't wake him just take the gun!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ  police misuse of flash bang grenade. some cops are creepy thugs.


And, if they would have done the job correctly, this man could have lived and got the mental health help he needed. I do not agree with his actions before hand, but it still did not have to go down the way it did! And the family does deserve something, maybe if this corrupt government has to pay out there a$#, they will wake up, and start doing things RIGHT, EVERYTIME!!!!


May if his family and him would have done things right everytime he would still be alive.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZM8Mq9ll1g  how would many of you react from a sleep if a flash bang grenade went off near you? how would you react? be honest. please note the explosive power and noise that a flash bang grenade makes. some of you probably have loaded guns in your bedroom. suppose the police enter your house by mistake because of a wrong address. they throw in a flash bang grenade next to your bed. boom. you react by going for your gun. bang bang bang. you are dead.


I would be startled as could be however you are speaking in ifs. They were attending to a situation not kicking down a random door. If you want to deal in ifs we could go on forever.


Bigdad - yes you would have been startled if this happened to you - and now let's move past that startled part - you have a gun on your lap - there is smoke all around you and it is hard to see - the fact that you are drunk makes it even harder to see and make out things - you jump and don't even realize that you still have a gun on your lap - the cops couldn't see any better in this situation.  Seems to me that it is also possible that the kid didn't realize he was pointing a gun at anyone or anything else for that matter.

The case still warrants a jury trial with a really good investigative defense attorney.  The family will win in this case.  It was totally un-necessary to use that flash-bang.  They could have just walked in quietly and remove the gun and put handcuffs on the guy then woke him up and taken him to jail.  It could have been over in less than half an hour without anyone getting hurt and no lawsuits either.

The cops created the situation they are in and they also created the lawsuit. Apparently the judge believes there is a chance of the familiy winning or he wouldn' thave agreed to the lawsuit in the first place.  There is more than enough reasonable doubt in this case.


Lets go further back I am not a convicted felon who is in illegal possesion of a firearm. I am not a person who shot into an occupied house trying to intimidate them. The police new this before they entered. He has also shown he has no regard for life. Even though you believe he was passed out. They have to think in the worse case scenario that he is setting a trap for them. Hence the use of flash bang disorient him. He raised the weapon (that he wasnt supposed to have) this got him shot. Your right this should go to trial that ways hopefully all questions are answered. If the BCI had not whitewashed their investigation we probably wouldnt be having this discussion.



the only thing i would add to the discussion going on here, is this..

the overwhelming majority of our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line everyday and they perform with excellence... they do not condone this gross misconduct and neither should you... you do a great dis-service and insult to them, if you make excuses for what happened in this case (because then you lump that majority of excellent officers in with these guys and imply that they would've behaved the same way... this is not appreciated)


the vast majority of cops are great and do a great job. some cops are creepy thugs who hide behind a badge. the cop who threw the grenade at the oakland protest is named robert roche. roche has killed 3 people in the past. a couple of the killings were questionable. i didn't see anykind of punishement for roche but there was a lawsuit. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/22/1067185/-Do-We-Finally-Know-Who-Tossed-the-Flash-Bang-Grenade-At-Scott-Olsen-and-His-Rescuers-    bad cops give good cops a bad name. what happened in fremont happens in other places.  what happened in oakland happens in other places.


This family must feel an enormous amount of guilt for having called the police in the first place.  To have it end like this must be more than the parents can bear.  Imagine calling the police and having it cost you the life of your child?  No wonder they have tried over and over again to get this to trial.

But what happens if a jury finds in favor of the police in this matter?  What happens to this mother and father if this jury decides that  the police acted in a manner that was NOT contrary to standards and they were wrong?  JUST SAYING IF?

How then to you salve your wounds over your dead child?  How then do you justify the end?  That is a big what if? The full responsibility then rests on your shoulders.  You are the ones who called the police in the first place. It was your child who treatened YOU and was drunk and high.  You were the ones who complained about him.  What then do you tell yourself? 

Just thinking on "paper". 

Julie R.

I agree that this young man's death was totally unnecessary. Also, about his prior conviction of firing into a house with people in it --- I'm almost positive that they will not be able to bring that up in this trial.

Marcus M

The standard to allow a case to trial in federal civil rules is extremely low and yes prior bad acts in a civil case in some situations may be admissible. For the officers involved, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. 


@JulieR  this mans death may have been unnecessary but the world is a better place because of it.