Zhoie Perez: Synagogue Shooting, Settlement, and Federal Lawsuits

Zhoie Perez is a Los Angeles-based transgender YouTube personality who films in public under the handle “Furry Potato” and is best known for being shot in the leg by a security guard outside a Fairfax-district synagogue in February 2019. Prosecutors declined to charge the guard, Perez settled a civil suit against him and his employer in 2022, and she has since pursued two separate federal civil rights lawsuits tied to later encounters with police in Beverly Hills and Los Angeles.

Who She Is and What She Films

Perez is a self-described First Amendment auditor. She describes her work as “filming law enforcement without explaining why to assert one’s constitutional rights and test an officer’s response to those rights.”¹ On her crowdfunding page she says her goal is to “educate people about their rights while holding police and government officials accountable.”² At the time of the shooting that made her nationally known, her YouTube channel had around 20,000 subscribers.³

Her videos tend to follow a pattern. She arrives at a government building, house of worship, or other sensitive location, begins filming from a public sidewalk, and waits for someone to react. A Los Angeles Times profile described the approach as “playfully confrontational” at the start and escalating from there.⁴ She has used what she calls the “silent treatment,” refusing to answer questions from people who approach her about what she is doing.

Before the synagogue shooting she had already drawn attention. In late 2018 a security guard pepper-sprayed her while she filmed outside the Islamic Center of Southern California in Koreatown; LAPD responded but no charges were reported against either party.⁴

The Shooting Outside the Etz Jacob Synagogue

On February 14, 2019, Perez was live-streaming outside the Etz Jacob Congregation and Ohel Chana High School in the Fairfax neighborhood when a 44-year-old security guard, Edduin Zelayagrunfeld, shot her in the leg.⁵ The encounter lasted roughly 40 minutes and was captured on her own live stream.⁴

In the video, Zelayagrunfeld is seen holding his handgun for about three minutes while Perez continues to film. He repeatedly asks why she is recording. She does not answer. She tells viewers on the stream that the guard has threatened to shoot her if she moves. About four minutes into the standoff a loud bang is heard and the camera falls to the sidewalk.⁵ Perez retreated behind a parked car. She was taken to a hospital and released the same day with what she described as a graze wound to her upper right leg.³

Zelayagrunfeld told police the shot was a “warning” and claimed Perez had been trying to “break inside” the facility.⁵ Perez later told the Washington Post the encounter “turned into an impromptu First Amendment audit because the security guard almost immediately was getting really aggressive with the filming and putting the hand on the gun.”¹ The principal of Ohel Chana High School, Yehudis Farkash, told reporters the school had been placed on lockdown and said Perez had been filming the building’s “perimeter, windows, and exits” and “became belligerent.”

Why the Guard Was Not Charged

LAPD arrested Zelayagrunfeld at the scene and booked him on a felony charge of assault with a deadly weapon with a firearm. He was released on $50,000 bond.⁶ Prosecutors asked LAPD to conduct a deeper investigation before deciding whether to file.⁷

On March 13, 2019, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office formally declined to file charges. In a declination memorandum, Deputy District Attorney John Harlan wrote that prosecutors could not disprove that Zelayagrunfeld had acted in self-defense. The office cited several factors it considered reasonable grounds for the guard’s perception of danger: Perez was dressed entirely in black and wore a backpack that in the guard’s view could have concealed a weapon or explosive; the location was a Jewish school and house of worship; and the country had recently experienced a surge in anti-Semitic hate crimes, including the October 2018 mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.⁸ LAPD confirmed it did not classify the incident as a bias crime, and Perez was not charged with any offense.²

The Civil Lawsuit and Settlement

The same day prosecutors declined to charge the guard, Perez filed a civil suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The defendants were Zelayagrunfeld, the security company Stealth Protection and Security Inc., the Etz Jacob Torah Center, and the Ohel Chana High School (doing business as Bais Chana Heritage School).⁹ The complaint alleged assault, false imprisonment, negligence, and discrimination. Her attorney, John Carpenter, called the shooting “100% unprovoked and unjustified.”⁸

The outcome was mixed. In July 2020 the court sustained a demurrer filed by Bais Chana Heritage School and the Etz Jacob Torah Center without leave to amend, dismissing all claims against the school and synagogue. The claims against Zelayagrunfeld and the security company continued until a notice of settlement was filed on April 27, 2022. Perez then filed a request for dismissal with prejudice, and the case was closed on August 12, 2022. The settlement terms were not disclosed.⁹

Later Federal Lawsuits

Perez has since filed two separate federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, both still tied to her auditing work.

Beverly Hills

On March 27, 2023, Perez sued the City of Beverly Hills in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over an April 24, 2021 incident at the Magen David Synagogue of Beverly Hills.¹⁰ She alleged that a synagogue congregant identified only as “John Doe” made false allegations that led Beverly Hills officers to detain her. In discovery she sought body-worn camera footage, patrol vehicle footage from the car in which she was held, and an unredacted police report she believed would identify the John Doe. The city denied those requests.¹¹

The court dismissed the John Doe defendant without prejudice in October 2024 after Perez failed to identify and serve him. The city moved for summary judgment, and the district court entered final judgment on March 5, 2026, terminating the case.¹⁰ Post-judgment proceedings to tax costs followed in April 2026, indicating the city prevailed.

Los Angeles

On November 10, 2022, Perez filed a separate § 1983 suit against the City of Los Angeles, two LAPD officers identified as Rios and Walker, an individual named Claude Jabsi, and a John Doe. The specific factual allegations are not summarized in publicly available docket materials, but the case is categorized as a civil rights matter and Perez filed a jury demand. Early procedural history was difficult: the court struck several of her discovery filings for violating federal rules and issued an order to show cause after she missed a case management deadline. As of the last docket entry in June 2025, the case was still open.¹²

The Unsettled Law Behind Her Cases

The question running through all of Perez’s encounters is whether filming in public, especially near houses of worship or government buildings, is constitutionally protected. No U.S. Supreme Court decision has explicitly established a right to film public officials or public buildings. Several federal circuits have recognized such a right in specific contexts: the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all found some First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public.¹³

Courts have generally treated recording as part of the “speech process,” a necessary precursor to disseminating information, rather than as speech only at the moment a video is published. In American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez (2012), the Seventh Circuit held that audiovisual recording is “necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights.”¹³ The right is not absolute, and courts have allowed reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly outside traditional public forums like sidewalks and parks.

That tension between the right to film from a public sidewalk and the security concerns of people inside the building being filmed is the same tension that produced the Perez case. Prosecutors concluded the guard reasonably feared an attack. Perez’s lawyers insisted she was peacefully exercising a constitutional right. Neither position has been definitively resolved in court.

1
U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. First Amendment YouTuber Shot While Live-Streaming Security Guard
2
San Diego Union-Tribune. YouTube Personality Furry Potato Shot and Wounded Outside LA Synagogue
3
San Diego Union-Tribune. Prosecutors Ask LAPD to Take Another Look at Shooting of YouTuber Outside Synagogue
4
Los Angeles Times. YouTube Personality Furry Potato Shot Outside LA Synagogue
5
The Forward. YouTube Star Shot by Synagogue Guard in Los Angeles
6
ABC News. Armed Security Guard Charged With Assault in Connection With LA Synagogue Shooting
7
KTLA. YouTube Personality Sues Fairfax District Synagogue, Security Guard After Being Shot During Bizarre Confrontation
8
Los Angeles Times. Furry Potato Lawsuit Filed Against Synagogue and Guard
9
UniCourt. Zhoie Perez v. Edduin Zelaya Grunfeld, et al.
10
CourtListener. Zhoie Perez v. City of Beverly Hills
11
CaseMine. Perez v. City of Beverly Hills
12
CourtListener. Zhoie Perez v. City of Los Angeles
13
UNC School of Government. Responding to First Amendment Audits: Is Filming Protected by the First Amendment