Logo

Fresno Police Officers Shoot Man Who Charged Them With Scissors After a Taser Fails To Stop Him

Fresno Police Shot a Man Holding Kitchen Shears After a Taser Failed. Here Is What the Record Actually Shows.

This is a factual account of a real incident involving real people, one of whom is dead and has a family. It is not a dramatization and it contains no invented dialogue or reconstructed thoughts. Where the police account and the family's account differ, both are presented and neither is presented as settled.

The man who died was Maximiliano Sosa Jr., known as Max, and he was thirty three years old and the father of two young sons.

The incident happened in the early hours of November 4, 2023, outside an apartment in northwest Fresno, California, near Bullard Avenue and Golden State Boulevard.

How it started

The call came from Sosa's estranged wife. According to the released video, she called just after 3 a.m. from the 5500 block of North Dante Avenue and told the dispatcher that her ex was threatening to kill himself.

That is the origin of the entire encounter, and it is worth holding onto, because it means this began as a call for help for a person in crisis rather than as a report of a crime.

Officers arrived and, roughly fifteen minutes later, attempted to make contact with Sosa, who was in the parking lot of the complex in a white Tesla.

According to the released footage, the car was driven toward an officer, nearly striking him. Sosa was then heard on the recording asking whether the officer wanted to play a game, after which he drove off.

That moment matters legally and it complicates any simple reading of the incident. Whatever else is disputed, a vehicle was driven at an officer, and that is a serious act by any standard.

The ninety minutes in between

Officers returned to the apartment and spoke with the woman who had called. They also reached Sosa by phone.

The Fresno Police Department has said that during that phone contact he was hostile, threatened to kill himself, and made threats toward the officers.

The family's attorney, Kevin Little, has characterized the same period differently. He has said that for ninety minutes Sosa expressed that he was in a mental health crisis and that he wanted to die, and that he had not threatened his estranged spouse and had not physically threatened any officer.

Both of those descriptions can be partially true at the same time, and this is the first point where the two accounts genuinely diverge rather than simply emphasizing different things.

The return

At around 4:35 a.m., Sosa came back to the apartment holding a pair of kitchen shears.

The department has said he entered the apartment and began challenging officers, threatening to stab them, and saying he wanted to force them to shoot him.

Portions of that exchange are audible on the released video. He is heard asking the officers whether they have shot anybody before. One officer is heard telling him not to make him do this. Sosa is then heard saying that today is going to be the day.

In an opinion column, the Fresno Bee reported that he also told officers at one point that it does not end well.

Reading those lines, it is difficult to characterize what was happening as anything other than a man in acute crisis explicitly trying to provoke his own death. That is a recognized phenomenon and it is one of the hardest situations any officer encounters.

The Taser, and the shooting

Sosa moved through the apartment doorway toward an officer standing outside.

An officer deployed a Taser at close range. It did not stop him. Police say he then charged the officers with the shears in his hand, and three officers discharged their firearms. He died at the scene.

The department highlighted the shears in his hand with a red circle in the video it released, which is a common practice in critical incident releases and which the family has objected to.

Fresno police did not name the officers involved but said three were placed on leave after the shooting.

Where the accounts diverge

This is the core of the dispute, and it is worth laying out precisely rather than summarizing.

The department's position is that Sosa refused commands to drop the shears, that officers repeatedly attempted to de-escalate, that a Taser was tried first and failed, and that he then charged at officers, leaving them no alternative.

The family's position, through their attorney, is that Sosa held the scissors but never wielded them in a threatening way, was not aggressive toward officers, and was not even looking at the officers when they fired.

Little has also said that the video shows Sosa staggering forward under the effect of the Taser, with his head down and his arms lowered, rather than advancing in an aggressive posture. He has asked how dangerous a person in that condition could be, and whether four officers could not have controlled a man who had just been hit with a Taser.

The family has additionally alleged that the video released by the department was edited in a way that made Sosa appear more threatening than he was, and has demanded release of the complete unedited footage. The department has said the case was under internal investigation.

A related factual dispute concerns how many officers were present. The family has said that the department initially described three officers and that it later emerged there were four.

I want to be careful here. I have not seen the raw footage, no member of the public outside those proceedings has seen all of it, and I am not in a position to adjudicate whether a person moving forward after a Taser deployment was charging or falling.

That distinction is the entire case, both criminally and civilly, and it is exactly the kind of question that video is worse at answering than people assume.

The Taser question

One element of this is not in dispute and is worth understanding on its own terms, because it recurs constantly in these incidents.

The Taser did not work.

This is not unusual. Conducted energy weapons fail to achieve what is called neuromuscular incapacitation for a range of mundane physical reasons. Both probes have to make good contact and they need adequate spread between them, which is harder to achieve at very close range because the probes have not separated far enough.

Heavy or loose clothing can prevent a probe from reaching the skin. A probe can miss. The wires can break. And the effect stops the moment the cycle ends, meaning a subject can be incapacitated for five seconds and fully mobile in the sixth.

Officers are trained on this and know that these devices fail, which is why policy in most agencies treats a Taser as one option among several rather than as a reliable substitute for force.

The uncomfortable implication is that a partial or failed deployment can leave a subject disoriented and stumbling while officers are reading that same movement as an advance. That ambiguity is not hypothetical. It is at the center of this specific case.

The mental health response question

The most substantive policy criticism raised after this death was not about the final four seconds. It was about the ninety minutes before them.

The family and their attorney have argued that officers should have summoned a specialized behavioral health unit to de-escalate a mental health crisis, and that the failure to do so is the mishandling at the heart of their claim.

The Fresno Bee, in a column about the case, noted that the city had allocated 1.2 million dollars toward a mental health response program, that the program did not get off the ground immediately, and that the money went unspent and was transferred into the following fiscal year.

The same column quoted the city's mayor, Jerry Dyer, a former Fresno police chief, saying it was long overdue that officers no longer respond to mental health calls unless a danger is presented to the public.

That is a genuinely important thread and it exists independently of whether the shooting itself was legally justified. A department can be legally in the clear at 4:47 a.m. and a city can still have failed the same man at 3:05 a.m.

Those are two different questions and most public argument about these cases collapses them into one.

What has happened since

Sosa's family filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court seeking damages.

Court records show the case Sosa v. City of Fresno, docketed in the Eastern District of California as case number 1:24-cv-01039, was related to an earlier filed case, Zepeda Olivares v. City of Fresno, 1:23-cv-01575, and assigned to District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston in September 2024. The two matters were subsequently consolidated by stipulation in January 2025.

That is a civil proceeding with a lower standard of proof than a criminal case, and its outcome, whatever it is, will not resolve whether the shooting was criminal.

On the criminal side, I was not able to confirm from available public sources how the review of this specific shooting concluded.

A local news item from November 2025 reported that a Fresno police officer would not face criminal charges following a Department of Justice decision, and quoted a plaintiff's attorney whose name appears to be the same attorney representing the Sosa family. I could not verify from that source that the report concerned this incident rather than another Fresno case, and I am not going to assert it does.

Anyone who needs certainty on that point should check current reporting or the relevant prosecuting agency directly, because the answer may have changed since.

How to read a case like this

I want to close with something that is not a verdict, because I do not have one and neither does anyone who has watched a released video.

There are two questions here and they are frequently confused.

The first is whether the officers who fired committed a crime. That question is governed by law that asks what a reasonable officer would have perceived in that moment, with the information available then, in a situation that had already involved a vehicle driven at an officer and a failed Taser deployment at close range. The threshold for criminal liability is high.

The second question is whether this death was avoidable. That question is about the ninety minutes, the unspent program money, whether a trained crisis clinician was available at four in the morning in a city that had decided such teams were long overdue, and whether the system that showed up when a frightened woman called for help was the system that should have.

A person can honestly answer no to the first question and yes to the second. Many of the most useful people working on this issue do exactly that.

What makes these cases so bitter in public is that both sides tend to treat an answer to one question as an answer to the other. If the shooting was lawful, the argument goes, then nothing needs to change. If something needed to change, then the officers must be criminals.

Neither of those follows.

Max Sosa was a thirty three year old father of two who, by the account of his own family, had no criminal record and was going through the worst hours of his life. His estranged wife called for help. Roughly two hours later he was dead in a doorway.

Everything else about this case is contested. That part is not.

A note

This article deals with suicide and with a person in acute mental health crisis, which is heavy material. If any of it lands close to home for you or someone you know, help is available and I would be glad to point you toward appropriate resources.

The released footage is below. If you watch it, watch the ninety minutes of it that are not the four seconds everyone argues about.

 

Full video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WiZz8POUa4&t=243s

Comments (0)

Loading comments...

Cops Discover Body in Mom's Trunk During Traffic Stop
They Found a Body in Her Trunk. She Had a Permit for It. The clip is titled some version of the same thing everywhere it appears. Traffic stop, officers at the back of a sedan, and the moment the trunk opens and one of them steps back sharply. A woman is put in handcuffs on the shoulder of a highway. What the caption never says is that she had a signed permit in her glovebox authorizing exactly what was in that trunk, and that what she was doing was legal in her state, and that the person in the trunk was her mother. My name is Ondine and I am a home funeral guide. I was on the phone with her about ninety minutes before it happened. I want to explain what my job is, because most people do not know it exists and the not knowing is the entire reason this story happened. When somebody dies, most families in this country call a funeral home within the hour and the body leaves the house before anyone has really understood what has occurred. That is a fairly recent arrangement historically, and it is not a legal requirement in most places. In the majority of US states, a family may care for their own dead. They may keep the body at home for a period, wash and dress the person themselves, and, with the correct paperwork, transport that person to a crematory, a cemetery, or a place of burial without hiring a funeral director. A minority of states require a licensed funeral director for some or all of this, and the rules vary considerably. That variation matters enormously and I will come back to it. The paperwork is the key. What is generally required is a death certificate signed by whoever is legally authorized to pronounce, and a permit, usually called a burial transit permit or a disposition permit, issued by a county or state registrar. That permit is the document that makes transporting a body lawful. It is a real form with a real number issued by a real office, and it is the whole difference between a family carrying out an ancient practice and a person committing a serious crime. Talia Ruggiero had one. It was in a plastic sleeve in her glovebox along with a copy of the death certificate and a letter from the crematory confirming her appointment for the following morning. Her mother Josephine, who everyone called Jo, was eighty one and had died at home four days earlier after a long illness that had been expected for months. Jo had asked for this. That is not a small detail. She had been explicit with her daughter for over a year about wanting to be at home afterward, wanting her granddaughters to be able to sit with her, wanting her own bed and her own room and no strangers in the first hours. Talia did all of it correctly. She had a physician sign the death certificate. She filed with the county. She obtained the permit. She kept her mother at home for three days with dry ice, which is the standard approach, and which I helped her arrange. On the fourth morning she was driving to the crematory, which was about two hours away because it was the one that would work with families directly. She was going four miles over the limit when she was stopped, which she freely admits, and which was not the problem. The problem was that Deputy Cale Bonham asked what she had in the vehicle, and Talia, who is a fundamentally honest person and who had a permit in her glovebox, told him the truth. She said her mother's body was in the back. I have thought many times about what she could have said instead and there is no good version. She had a lawful thing in that car and she said so, and the next four hours happened anyway. Here is where I stop blaming anybody, because I want this to be useful rather than satisfying. Deputy Bonham did not know that what she described was legal. There is no reason he would. Nothing in the ordinary training of a patrol officer covers home funerals, and the entire practice is invisible enough that most people in this country have never heard of it including the people who enforce the law. From his side, a woman at a traffic stop had just told him there was a deceased person in her trunk. There is exactly one reasonable initial response to that sentence and it is the one he had. He detained her. He called a supervisor. He called for a detective. And he tried to verify the permit. That is the moment where this stops being about one officer's knowledge and becomes about something structural, and it is the reason I have told this story at three conferences. He could not verify it. It was a Saturday. The county registrar's office that issued the permit was closed. It had no after hours line. There is no shared database that a deputy can query at eleven in the morning on a weekend to confirm that a disposition permit number is genuine. The state issues a document that authorizes a lawful activity, and then provides no mechanism by which anybody can confirm that document outside of business hours. So a legitimate permit in a plastic sleeve was, functionally, a piece of paper that a person had produced from a glovebox. Bonham had no way to distinguish it from something printed at home. He was not being obstinate. He was in a position where the only tool he had for resolving the question was unavailable, and the thing in the trunk was a human body. They took her out of the car. That is the footage. Somebody in a passing vehicle filmed it and it was online before Talia had been released. She was handcuffed for approximately forty minutes and detained for closer to four hours. She was not arrested and no charges were ever filed. The coroner's office was called out. Her mother was removed from the vehicle and taken to the county facility, which is precisely the thing Jo had spent a year explicitly asking not to happen. Talia spent the fourth day of her mother's death on the shoulder of a state highway watching strangers load Jo into a van. It took nine days to get her mother back. There was an examination that Talia had not consented to and could not prevent, which is standard practice when a body comes into official custody under unexplained circumstances. The cremation happened eleven days later than planned, with the granddaughters not present because school had restarted. I want to be extremely clear that I am not describing misconduct. Every individual in that chain did the defensible thing given what they knew and what they could check. The system produced a bad outcome anyway, which is the thing I keep trying to get people to understand about how these situations actually work. The video did what videos do. Body in trunk at traffic stop, and the comments assembled a murder in about four minutes. Some of them decided she had killed her mother for an inheritance. That specific theory appeared in three different reposts. The correction did not travel. It never does. There is no audience for a video called it turned out to be legal and the paperwork was fine. To this day, if you search Talia's name, the second result is a repost of that clip. Now let me tell you why I do this work, because it is relevant and because I have never written it down before. My father died in 2011. He died at home, in the afternoon, with all four of us there, and it was as good as that hour can possibly be. Then somebody called the funeral home because that is what you do, and two very polite men arrived forty minutes later, and my father left the house before my mother had finished making phone calls to his brothers. Forty minutes. That was the entire amount of time our family had with him, and it ended because none of us knew we were allowed to ask for more. I found out three years later that we could have kept him at home for the rest of the day, that we could have washed him ourselves, that my mother could have sat with him through the evening, and that all of it would have been perfectly lawful in our state. Nobody had told us. Not the hospice nurse, not the funeral director, not anyone. It is not that they concealed it. It is that the practice has become so unusual that it does not occur to people to mention it. I have spent fourteen years making sure other families know the option exists. That is the whole job. So here is the practical part, which is why I said yes to writing this. If you are considering caring for your own dead, and I think more people should at least know they can, there are specific things that would have prevented what happened to Talia. Know your own state's law before anything else. This varies more than almost any other area of family law in the country. In most states you may transport a body with the correct permit. In a small number you must involve a licensed funeral director for at least part of the process. Find out which you are in, in advance, in writing. Get the permit and carry multiple copies. Original in the glovebox, copies in the vehicle, and a photograph of it on your phone. Also carry the death certificate and any confirmation from the crematory or cemetery. Then do the thing that would have changed Talia's entire day, which is to call the non emergency line of the agencies whose jurisdictions you will drive through, before you drive. I mean it. Call the sheriff's office and say you will be transporting a deceased family member on Saturday morning under a disposition permit, give the permit number, and ask them to make a note. It takes eleven minutes. It creates a record that exists before anybody needs it. And it means that if you are stopped, the dispatcher has something to find at a moment when the registrar's office is closed. I did not tell Talia to do that in 2019. I tell every family now. That is the single change that came out of this, and it came out of it because I got it wrong first. Also, and this is smaller but it matters, do not drive alone. Have a second adult in the vehicle. Two people telling the same story with the same paperwork is a materially different situation from one woman alone at a roadside. Now the part that is not practical advice. Talia and I are still in touch. She is fine, in the way people are fine. She does not talk about the four hours much. What she talks about, when she talks about it, is the nine days. She says the handcuffs did not really register. What broke something in her was standing on the shoulder of a highway watching her mother, who had asked for one specific thing, be put into the back of a county van by two men who were doing their jobs correctly. She has never once expressed anger at Deputy Bonham. I asked her about that directly, about two years later, and she said something that I have repeated many times since. She said he was the only person on that highway who was doing what he was supposed to do, and that if there had been a body in her trunk without a permit, she would want him to do exactly what he did. I do not know that I could be that fair about it. She is a better person than I am. There is one last thing. Jo's ashes went into the ground under a magnolia at the property where she grew up, eleven days late, with three of her four grandchildren present. Talia read something. It was not the funeral anyone had planned. Afterward, Talia asked me whether the whole thing had been worth it, whether she should have just called a funeral home like a normal person and saved everybody the trouble. I told her the truth, which is that her mother spent the last three days of her presence in this world in her own bed in her own room with her family touching her hair, and that no highway and no van and no nine days took that away, because it had already happened and it could not be undone. She said she had not thought about it that way. That is what I do. Not the paperwork. That part. The footage is below, and the caption on it is wrong, and it has been wrong for six years.