Thurston County Deputy Cleared in June Shooting; Criminal Case Remains Pending
A Thurston County prosecutor has cleared Deputy Vidal Zamora of wrongdoing in the June 4 shooting of Joseph Paul Kochanowski, according to Sheriff Derek Sanders. That decision concerns the deputy’s use of force; it does not resolve the separate criminal case against Kochanowski, who faces a second-degree assault charge and has a competency evaluation hearing listed for Dec. 14.
The case involves two questions that should not be blurred together: whether the deputy’s shooting was legally justified, and what will happen in the criminal case against the man who was shot. The sheriff says prosecutors reviewed the deputy’s actions and cleared him. Court records, as described in reporting by The Olympian, show that Kochanowski was charged after the incident and later entered a not-guilty plea. Those are separate proceedings, with separate standards and outcomes.
What happened in the Thurston County shooting?
At just after 9 a.m. on June 4, Deputy Zamora shot Kochanowski multiple times at a property Kochanowski owns on 149th Lane Southeast. The property is southeast of Yelm and northeast of Lake Lawrence. The sheriff’s office had sent Zamora to help the Southeast Thurston Fire Authority with a trailer fire, The Olympian previously reported.
According to the law-enforcement account summarized in the reporting, Kochanowski did not cooperate with the deputy and pointed a revolver at him. Kochanowski was wounded in the leg, hip, and upper arm, according to court records. He did not fire the revolver. Zamora was not injured.
That account establishes important details, but it is not the same as a full public release of the investigative record. Sanders said the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office reviewed the investigation and concluded that Zamora had made efforts to calm the situation, had authority to make the scene safe for firefighters waiting nearby, and used deadly force only after being threatened with a firearm. The office’s detailed review was not included in the facts reported here. The Olympian had asked the PAO to comment and share its review.
The distinction matters. A sheriff’s public description of a prosecutor’s conclusion tells readers what the sheriff says the office found; it does not provide the underlying evidence or the office’s complete written reasoning. Careful reporting should keep those things distinct rather than treating a summary as a substitute for the complete investigative file.
Sanders called the use of deadly force by government agents a matter deserving careful scrutiny. He said Zamora’s actions and conduct on June 4 “surpass such analysis.” That is the sheriff’s assessment after the PAO review. The fact that the incident received a review is relevant, but it does not remove the public interest in knowing how the decision was reached.
The prosecutor’s review and the remaining questions
The Region 3 Critical Incident Investigation Team investigated the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office use of force. The team was led by the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office, and the investigation lasted nine weeks, according to the account provided by Sanders. Investigators presented their findings to the Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office on Aug. 4 for consideration of possible charges.
Sanders later said the PAO cleared Zamora. He described the office’s findings as including three central points: Zamora attempted to de-escalate, he had legal authority to render the scene safe for firefighters nearby, and he used deadly force as a last resort after a firearm threat. Those findings address the deputy’s response as described by the sheriff. Without the PAO’s underlying review, readers cannot independently assess the full evidentiary basis, the precise legal analysis, or how investigators evaluated competing accounts.
That is not a reason to presume the decision was wrong. It is a reason to be exact about what is known and who said it. Public trust depends not only on the outcome of a review but also on clear explanations of the process, evidence, and legal standard. In use-of-force cases, that transparency serves the common good: it recognizes the seriousness of state power while respecting the need for a fair investigation.
Sanders also thanked backup officers, deputies, detectives, medical personnel, and the Region 3 team for preserving relevant evidence. He said he was grateful no one was killed. The remark reflects the seriousness of an incident in which a deputy fired multiple shots and a man suffered several gunshot wounds, even though the reported outcome was not fatal.
One practical point remains unresolved in the public account: the PAO’s detailed review had not been provided in the information available for this article. Sanders’s announcement is therefore the basis for describing the prosecutor’s conclusion, not a replacement for direct access to the prosecutor’s analysis.
Timeline: from the fire response to the pending hearing
- June 4, just after 9 a.m. — Deputy responds to a fire call. Zamora went to Kochanowski’s property to assist the Southeast Thurston Fire Authority with a trailer fire. The property is on 149th Lane Southeast, southeast of Yelm and northeast of Lake Lawrence.
- June 4 — The deputy shoots Kochanowski. Law enforcement alleged that Kochanowski refused to cooperate and pointed a revolver at Zamora. Zamora fired multiple times. Court records say Kochanowski was wounded in the leg, hip, and upper arm; the revolver was not fired, and Zamora was unharmed.
- After the shooting — Medical treatment and booking. First responders took Kochanowski to Madigan Army Medical Center for treatment. He was later booked into the county jail.
- June 10 — Court finds probable cause and sets bail. Superior Court Judge Allyson Zipp found probable cause for first-degree assault while armed with a firearm and set bail at $50,000. Kochanowski posted bail later that day, according to court records.
- June 12 — Prosecutors file a charge. The PAO charged Kochanowski with second-degree assault while armed with a firearm, with an aggravating circumstance alleging that the victim was a law-enforcement officer.
- June 30 — Not-guilty plea entered. Private defense attorney Michael Stewart entered a not-guilty plea for Kochanowski at an arraignment hearing. Stewart described his client as a 68-year-old retired bicycle and boat mechanic with no criminal history. The description of his background came from the defense attorney, not from a court finding on the shooting.
- About one month after the incident — Deputy returns to work. The sheriff’s office placed Zamora on paid administrative leave after the shooting. He later returned to work as a patrol deputy, spokesperson Sgt. Mickey Hamilton told The Olympian in August.
- Aug. 4 — Investigative findings go to prosecutors. The Region 3 Critical Incident Investigation Team presented its findings to the Thurston County PAO for consideration of possible charges.
- Later announcement — Sheriff says deputy was cleared. In a Tuesday evening social media post, Sanders said the PAO had cleared Zamora and summarized the office’s review. The date of that Tuesday post is not specified in the account available here.
- Dec. 14 — Competency evaluation hearing listed. Court records say Kochanowski is due back in court for a competency evaluation hearing. A jury trial is pending on the outcome of that hearing. The case’s eventual schedule or outcome is not stated here.
Prosecutor’s review and criminal case: two different tracks
| Issue | Deputy’s use-of-force review | Criminal case against Kochanowski |
|---|
| Central question | Whether Zamora’s use of deadly force warranted criminal charges against the deputy | Whether the prosecution can prove the assault charge against Kochanowski |
| Reviewing authority | Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, after a Region 3 investigation | Thurston County Superior Court process and the parties in the case |
| Publicly reported status | Sanders said prosecutors cleared Zamora | Kochanowski pleaded not guilty; the case remains pending |
| Key reported facts | PAO reportedly found Zamora tried to de-escalate and used force as a last resort after a firearm threat | The charge alleges second-degree assault while armed with a firearm, with an aggravating circumstance involving a law-enforcement victim |
| What is not established here | The detailed written reasoning and full evidentiary record behind the PAO decision | The result of the competency hearing, any jury trial, or a final adjudication |
The table is not a comparison between competing versions of the shooting. It separates the two legal tracks because they answer different questions. Prosecutors’ decision not to charge the deputy does not itself prove the criminal allegation against Kochanowski. Likewise, the existence of a charge against Kochanowski does not, on its own, establish guilt. A charge is an accusation that must be resolved through the court process.
That distinction can get lost in headlines. Frankly, it is the most important context for readers following this case: one review has reached a reported decision, while the other matter remains active. The not-guilty plea is a procedural step, not a verdict. The listed competency hearing is also not a finding about whether the alleged conduct occurred; the account says a jury trial is pending on the hearing’s outcome.
What to know—and what not to assume
“The deputy was cleared, so the whole case is over.” No. Sanders said the PAO cleared Zamora in its review of the deputy’s use of force. Kochanowski’s criminal case is separate and was still pending in the reported court schedule. A decision concerning one person’s conduct does not dispose of the charges against another person.
“Kochanowski fired the revolver.” The reported facts say he did not fire it. Law enforcement alleged that he pointed it at Zamora. Those are materially different claims, and they should not be collapsed into a more dramatic version of events. The deputy’s reported belief that he faced a firearm threat is part of the sheriff’s summary of the prosecutor’s reasoning; it does not change the reported fact that the weapon was not fired.
“A charge proves guilt.” It does not. Kochanowski was charged with second-degree assault while armed with a firearm and pleaded not guilty. The case remains subject to court proceedings. A fair account should identify the allegation and the plea without declaring a result that has not been reported.
“Paid leave means the deputy was disciplined.” The sheriff’s office placed Zamora on paid administrative leave for about a month and he later returned to patrol work. The reported facts do not say that the leave was a disciplinary finding. It is more accurate to describe the leave as an employment status after the incident than to assign it a purpose the account does not establish.
“The public has the complete prosecutor’s analysis.” Not based on the account here. Sanders summarized the PAO’s conclusions in a social media post, and The Olympian had asked the office to comment and share its review. Until the underlying review is available, readers should attribute those conclusions to the sheriff’s description of the PAO’s findings.
There is a broader lesson in keeping these distinctions sharp. Law enforcement has a duty to protect the public and emergency responders; government power also requires scrutiny, and accused people retain the right to a fair process. Those principles are not in conflict. They are the minimum conditions for public confidence when an encounter ends with gunfire.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was Deputy Vidal Zamora charged in the shooting?
Sheriff Derek Sanders said the Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office cleared Zamora after reviewing the incident. The reported account does not say that the deputy was charged.
What happened to Joseph Paul Kochanowski?
Kochanowski suffered gunshot wounds to his leg, hip, and upper arm and was taken to Madigan Army Medical Center. He was later booked into the county jail and charged with second-degree assault while armed with a firearm, with an aggravating circumstance involving a law-enforcement victim. He pleaded not guilty.
Did Kochanowski fire his revolver?
No. The reported account says he did not fire it. Law enforcement alleged that he pointed the revolver at Zamora.
When is the next court hearing?
Court records described in the reporting list a competency evaluation hearing for Dec. 14. A jury trial is pending on the outcome of that hearing. No later court result is stated here.
Final Thought
The clearest account of this incident is also the least dramatic: a deputy responding to a trailer fire shot a 68-year-old property owner; the man was wounded but survived; investigators reviewed the deputy’s actions; and the sheriff says prosecutors cleared the deputy. Separately, the wounded man faces a criminal charge and has entered a not-guilty plea. Each fact matters, and none should be stretched beyond what it says.
There is room to recognize the danger described by the sheriff and still ask for an accessible explanation of the review. There is room to take the prosecutor’s reported conclusion seriously and still distinguish a public summary from the complete analysis. And there is room to report the charge against Kochanowski without treating an accusation as a verdict. That is not fence-sitting. It is basic fairness.
The next meaningful developments are tied to the court process and any fuller release of the PAO’s review. Until then, the public record described here supports a careful conclusion: Zamora has been cleared according to Sanders, while Kochanowski’s case remains unresolved. In matters involving deadly force and criminal accusations, accuracy is not a nicety. It is part of the responsibility owed to everyone involved.