File photo: Gena Bernabe.

###

PREVIOUSLY:

###

Press release from the District Attorney’s Office:

District Attorney Stacey Eads has completed her review of the investigation regarding the July 26, 2025, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) Officer-involved shooting of 35-year-old Jared Randell Nelson of Crescent City, California. A Humboldt County Critical Incident Response Team, with members from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, Eureka Police Department, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, Arcata Police Department, Fortuna Police Department, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, Cal Poly Humboldt Police Department and California Highway Patrol, conducted the investigation. Additionally, the Humboldt County Coroner’s Office and the California Department of Justice- Bureau of Forensic Services, contributed to the investigation.

The following summarizes the facts derived from the investigation, as well as applicable law and legal conclusions of the District Attorney regarding this incident.

Please be advised the following content may be disturbing for readers.

Factual Summary

On July 26, 2025, shortly after 8:00 in the evening Humboldt County Sheriff Deputies were dispatched to serve a felony arrest warrant on Jared Randell Nelson in Blue Lake, California. Prior to serving the arrest warrant, Deputies J Eckert, C. Kane and R. Hurley, all attired in their HCSO uniforms and each driving a marked HCSO patrol vehicle, met in a nearby parking lot located at 1689 Glendale Road in Blue Lake. Their meeting spot was chosen to provide them with an opportunity to orchestrate their plan for service of the felony arrest warrant upon Mr. Nelson, a white adult male who was reportedly sighted in the area and named as a suspect of a firearm brandishing crime earlier that day.

While speaking with the two other deputies, Deputy Hurley’s attention was caught by a white male dressed in black clothing who walked towards them after coming around a bend on Glendale Road, but upon seeing the deputies, immediately changes his direction of travel. Video surveillance from a nearby business captured the man dressed in black clothing just before he goes into the bend in the direction of the parking lot where the deputies are located, with him going out of the camera’s view at timestamp 20:17:16. The same person reemerges into view of the camera, now walking away from the deputies’ location, at 20:17:41. He turns off the road and into a greenbelt at 20:17:46, disappearing from view of the surveillance camera.

Deputy Hurley suspected the man might be Mr. Nelson, so he drove in the direction the man walking along Glendale Road; however, the man was no longer on the road. Deputy Hurley then observed movement in dense brush alongside the road, so he parked his patrol vehicle and illuminated the shady brush with his flashlight. Surveillance video depicts Deputy Hurley pull up in his patrol vehicle and exit his vehicle next to where the man disappeared into the bushes at timestamp 20:18:23. Deputy Hurley saw what appeared to be the same man who had just been on the roadway lying on his side and hiding in the bushes. Deputy Hurley then announced he’s with the Sheriff’s Office and directed the man to “Come out with your hands up.” There was no response. Moments later, Deputy Kane joined Deputy Hurley. By crouching down with a flashlight shining into the bushes Deputy Kane was able to see the man, dressed in black clothing, lying on his side. Both deputies drew and held their firearms in the low ready position and repeatedly directed the man to come out of the bushes. He did not respond. After hearing the commands, Deputy Eckert soon joined the deputies.

Within seconds, Deputy Eckert confirmed the deputies had lethal cover, and they moved closer to the brush with Deputy Eckert moving directly to the concealed man’s perceived location intending to extract him from the brush. After moving a branch, Deputy Eckert saw the man lying on his side with his back to him. The man turned towards the deputies, and Deputy Eckert told him, “Show me your hands”. Deputy Eckert instantly saw a “flash”, heard a “bang”, felt something “whizzing past” his face and thought “he just shot me.” Deputy Eckert immediately retreated backwards and returned fire. Less than 8 seconds passed from the moment Deputy Eckert drew his firearm and moved towards the brush and when he was shot at and retreated. After firing multiple rounds and observing no further movement in the bushes he stopped firing and reloaded his magazine.

When Deputy Hurley heard the shot and saw smoke coming from the brush, he also understood the gunshot came from the hiding man. He fired shots into the bushes where he’d last seen the man and began to retreat to safety. As this occurred, Deputy Hurley feared one or both of his partners had been struck by a bullet.

Deputy Kane had a clear view of the man lying on the ground when the branch was moved and shortly thereafter saw a “large plume of smoke” coming from the brush and smelled “burnt gunpowder.” He instantly believed that he or his partners had been shot, and feared for his life, so he shot his firearm into the brush where the initial shot originated and he retreated.

The nearby business surveillance video recorded a single shot fired at timestamp 20:19:55 followed by a volley of shots heard starting at 20:19:56 and a final shot heard at timestamp 20:20:02. Afterwards, a male voice is immediately heard yelling: “Cover! Take cover!” A male is next heard yelling “Show me your hands! Show me your hands, now!”

Deputies retreated behind a telephone pole for cover and continued their commands directing the person to come out of the bushes, however there was no response. The deputies were able to see what appeared to be part of a black clothing item but were unable to clearly see the man nor ascertain his physical condition. Upon arrival of additional law enforcement officers, including supervising officers, the deputies were relieved from providing cover of the yet to be identified shooter. Additional verbal requests for the person to come out of the bushes or verbally communicate, yielded no response. Officers developed a tactical approach plan and utilized protective ballistic shields and less lethal bean bag projectiles to approach and remove the man from the dense brush. The man was identified as Jared Nelson.

Twenty minutes passed after shots were fired before officers, and other emergency medical personnel, were able to safely attempt life saving measures on Mr. Nelson, including CPR. Mr. Nelson was transported to Mad River Community Hospital; however, he succumbed to his injuries and was declared deceased at 8:58 that evening.

On August 6, 2025, Dr. Bennet Omalu, Forensic Pathologist/Neuropathologist, performed an autopsy on Mr. Nelson during which he recovered eleven bullets, ten 9mm and one .40 caliber, from Mr. Nelson’s body. Ten recovered projectiles originated from the July 26 shooting. The single .40 caliber, per Mr. Nelson’s close family members, originated from a 2016 incident in Oklahoma during which he was shot multiple times by a civilian. Following his months long recovery from the Oklahoma shooting, a bullet remained inside him near his spine. Subsequent forensic toxicology screening tests of Mr. Nelson’s blood revealed the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine. The cause of Mr. Nelson’s death was determined by Dr. Omalu to be “gunshot wounds of the trunk.”

Subsequent search of the area where Mr. Nelson hid in the brush revealed a loaded Llama semi-automatic pistol with a round in the chamber. In rendering the pistol safe an Arcata Police Department detective observed that upon moving the slide backward the bullet in the chamber was not seated correctly, potentially causing the pistol to malfunction when fired. Once the slide was fully open, the chambered round fell to the ground and was collected as evidence along with the newly unloaded pistol. Upon searching the brushy area following the shooting, a solid wooden residential fence was located approximately four feet deep into the trees and bushes. A Department of Fish & Wildlife specially trained canine, which was utilized during the search of the underbrush area where Mr. Nelson hid, located an expended 45 ACP casing. The round in the chamber of the Llama pistol had the same headstamp as the expended 45 ACP casing located at the scene. Subsequent forensic analysis of the evidence conducted by a senior criminalist with the Department of Justice determined the cartridge case had been fired by the Llama semi-automatic pistol located at the scene. Additionally, while test firing the Llama pistol, the criminalist noted that the pistol required “manual assistance to go into battery for each shot” but was functional.

Additionally, twenty (20) expended 9 mm Luger cartridge casings were located at the scene of the shooting. Each deputy involved in the shooting fired their Glock Model 17 duty firearm, and forensic analysis determined that ten (10) recovered casings were expended from Deputy Eckert’s firearm and five (5) recovered casings were expended from each of the firearms used by the two other deputies.

At the time of the shooting, Deputy Eckert had been with the HCSO since December of 2024 as a Deputy Sheriff and served over ten years as a police officer for the Eureka Police Department; Deputy Hurley was with HCSO for approximately one and a half years, and had eight years of prior law enforcement experience with the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department (HVTPD); and Deputy Kane had served four years with HCSO and had two additional years of law enforcement service with the HVTPD.

The Law

Under California law, an officer is justified in using deadly force when they reasonably believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. Moreover, officers need not retreat or desist from their efforts due to resistance or threatened resistance.

Pursuant to Penal Code section 196, homicide committed by peace officers is justified when the peace officer’s use of force complies with Penal Code section 835a. Thus, the applicable law in this situation is Penal Code section 835a, which states the following:

  1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) That the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The Legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.

(2) As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.

(3) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies.

(4) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.

(5) That individuals with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience greater levels of physical force during police interactions, as their disability may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers. It is estimated that individuals with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.

(b) Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.

(c)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:

(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.

(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

(d) A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. A peace officer shall not be deemed an aggressor or lose the right to self-defense by the use of objectively reasonable force in compliance with subdivisions (b) and (c) to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. For the purposes of this subdivision, “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other de-escalation tactics.

(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.

(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.

(3) “Totality of the circumstances” means all facts known to the peace officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force.

Legal Analysis

On July 26, 2025, the deputies justifiably used deadly force upon Mr. Nelson when they returned gunfire upon him because they were confronted by a situation for which they reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to defend themselves and each other against the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury posed by Mr. Nelson. The present ability, opportunity and intent of Mr. Nelson to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the deputies became indisputable when Mr. Nelson fired his Llama semi-automatic pistol at them from his hiding place in the bushes. Moments earlier, Deputy Hurley and Deputy Kane made multiple attempts to peacefully gain Mr. Nelson’s compliance by directing him to come out of his hiding place. He refused to comply. When Deputy Eckert initiated the process of extracting the non-compliant Mr. Nelson from the bushes, only a few feet away, Mr. Nelson shot his pistol at the deputies. With this action, it was evident that Mr. Nelson intended to kill or cause serious bodily injury to the deputies. Thus, the use of deadly force upon Mr. Nelson by the deputies was legally justified as their actions of returning fire in defense of themselves and each other were reasonable and necessary to instantly confront and defend against the threat Mr. Nelson presented.

Conclusion

District Attorney Stacey Eads has concluded the shooting death of Mr. Nelson was legally justified, in that the actions of all three deputies, Eckert, Hurley and Kane, was lawful and complied with California Penal Code Section 835a. Mr. Nelson’s family has been notified of the findings and legal determination.