CPRC: Summer Lane shooting was excessive force
During a closed session held on Nov. 9, the Community Police Review Commission determined that Officer Ryan Wilson violated the department's use of force policy when he shot and killed Summer Lane on Dec. 6, 2004. Hardly a shock considering the circumstances of the shooting, as well as actions taken by departmental management and other employees from day one. It is very difficult to read the investigation and not believe that those involved knew what was coming down the pike, early on.
Consent decree or not, the department's management will always resort to its favorite defense mechanism when trouble is brewing, which is to deny that there are any problems or any misconduct. After all, they are working from a very old script. A script that many, including most recently Attorney General Bill Lockyer, took a crack at rewriting but which remains etched in stone as much today as it was on Dec. 28, 1998.
The mood was somber as the eight commissioners departed from the session to begin the public meeting. No decision was announced that evening, pursuant to legal advice given to the commissioners by City Attorney Gregory Priamos. That announcement was in a sense, the city attorney's inadvertant way of revealing the CPRC's decision. Why else would Priamos even attend a CPRC closed session, if this shooting was going to follow on the heels of the previous six reviewed by the commission?
The finding was however, published at the CPRC Web Site
--------------------------------------------------
CPRC
click "findings"
click "2005"
click "November 9" (document is in pdf format)
--------------------------------------------------
Before the closed session began, Interim Executive Director Pedro Payne and CPRC Chair Michael Gardner had engaged in a discussion in the hallway with Capt. Richard Dana, from the chief's office, and Priamos. Priamos then went in closed session before the deliberations began, to brief the commission on how the finding was going to be disseminated to the public...which of course would be through the medium every city resident of course had access to: The internet.
The Lane shooting is the first of seven incustody deaths investigated by the CPRC to be found in violation of departmental policy. It is also the first shooting to have found by any committee inside or outside the police department to have involved excessive force in the department's history.
The CPRC will forward its finding to City Manager Brad Hudson who will make the final disposition on the shooting. The department completed its own administrative review months earlier and has forwarded its own findings. Deputy Chief David Dominguez and other department representatives from its management team have declined to comment on the Lane shooting, except to protest weakly that the Riverside County District Attorney's office declined to file criminal charges against Wilson as if that decision has anything to do with the department's administrative review. It does not and it should not.
But then strong leadership during turbulent times has never been this department's strongpoint. Five years spent spinning its reluctant participation in court-mandated reforms into the image of the "model agency", the new, improved RPD, has left the agency ill-prepared to face another controversal shooting, involving a woman inside a motor vehicle. The startling, if daunting aspect of this mess is that were it not for the CPRC and its power to investigate officer-involved deaths, the city's residents would be none the wiser.
From the beginning, the department's stance has been that Wilson shot and killed Lane because he was in fear for his life. However, at a briefing by its investigator held on Sept. 28, commissioners listened in shock as details from the shooting emerged which differed from those they had heard at an earlier briefing by the department held on Dec. 22, 2004. As the commissioners drafted their public report, it became clear through their statements that none of them believed that Wilson was in danger when he shot Lane. That conclusion was included in the public report released on Nov. 2.
The shooting has elicited a lot of discussion in City Hall in the sense that it is seen as a very bad shooting, but everyone is waiting to see what Hudson will decide to do.
Some see Hudson as a person who will take a strong stance and back the decision of the CPRC. Others, realize that he was hired by a city council, with a majority of its members financially backed by the Riverside Police Officers' Association. He is well aware what happens behind closed doors, twice a year.
It's also an election year all around in Riverside. Inside City Hall, and inside the RPOA. And elections have ways of making involved parties engage in rather interesting behavior, to win them. Toss in the stipulated agreement which people have announced plans to move on from already...before the ink on the signatures has even been written, let alone dried.
Once again, past is prologue and the future is unwritten in River City.
Consent decree or not, the department's management will always resort to its favorite defense mechanism when trouble is brewing, which is to deny that there are any problems or any misconduct. After all, they are working from a very old script. A script that many, including most recently Attorney General Bill Lockyer, took a crack at rewriting but which remains etched in stone as much today as it was on Dec. 28, 1998.
The mood was somber as the eight commissioners departed from the session to begin the public meeting. No decision was announced that evening, pursuant to legal advice given to the commissioners by City Attorney Gregory Priamos. That announcement was in a sense, the city attorney's inadvertant way of revealing the CPRC's decision. Why else would Priamos even attend a CPRC closed session, if this shooting was going to follow on the heels of the previous six reviewed by the commission?
The finding was however, published at the CPRC Web Site
--------------------------------------------------
CPRC
click "findings"
click "2005"
click "November 9" (document is in pdf format)
--------------------------------------------------
Before the closed session began, Interim Executive Director Pedro Payne and CPRC Chair Michael Gardner had engaged in a discussion in the hallway with Capt. Richard Dana, from the chief's office, and Priamos. Priamos then went in closed session before the deliberations began, to brief the commission on how the finding was going to be disseminated to the public...which of course would be through the medium every city resident of course had access to: The internet.
The Lane shooting is the first of seven incustody deaths investigated by the CPRC to be found in violation of departmental policy. It is also the first shooting to have found by any committee inside or outside the police department to have involved excessive force in the department's history.
The CPRC will forward its finding to City Manager Brad Hudson who will make the final disposition on the shooting. The department completed its own administrative review months earlier and has forwarded its own findings. Deputy Chief David Dominguez and other department representatives from its management team have declined to comment on the Lane shooting, except to protest weakly that the Riverside County District Attorney's office declined to file criminal charges against Wilson as if that decision has anything to do with the department's administrative review. It does not and it should not.
But then strong leadership during turbulent times has never been this department's strongpoint. Five years spent spinning its reluctant participation in court-mandated reforms into the image of the "model agency", the new, improved RPD, has left the agency ill-prepared to face another controversal shooting, involving a woman inside a motor vehicle. The startling, if daunting aspect of this mess is that were it not for the CPRC and its power to investigate officer-involved deaths, the city's residents would be none the wiser.
From the beginning, the department's stance has been that Wilson shot and killed Lane because he was in fear for his life. However, at a briefing by its investigator held on Sept. 28, commissioners listened in shock as details from the shooting emerged which differed from those they had heard at an earlier briefing by the department held on Dec. 22, 2004. As the commissioners drafted their public report, it became clear through their statements that none of them believed that Wilson was in danger when he shot Lane. That conclusion was included in the public report released on Nov. 2.
The shooting has elicited a lot of discussion in City Hall in the sense that it is seen as a very bad shooting, but everyone is waiting to see what Hudson will decide to do.
Some see Hudson as a person who will take a strong stance and back the decision of the CPRC. Others, realize that he was hired by a city council, with a majority of its members financially backed by the Riverside Police Officers' Association. He is well aware what happens behind closed doors, twice a year.
It's also an election year all around in Riverside. Inside City Hall, and inside the RPOA. And elections have ways of making involved parties engage in rather interesting behavior, to win them. Toss in the stipulated agreement which people have announced plans to move on from already...before the ink on the signatures has even been written, let alone dried.
Once again, past is prologue and the future is unwritten in River City.
posted by Five Before Midnight | 10:29 AM
28 Comments:
Gosh,
based on your performance on TV last night I see a little gold statue in your future.
based on you and Ms. Lane's family description at city hall last night Ms. Lane seems so innocent.
Oh yeah...has the family told her 2 kids that Mom was a "Tweaker" with methamphetamine in her system at the time of the incident(per the autopsy report and reported in the CPRC report)or just that Ofc. Wilson murdered their Mom...
Come on now...If your going to get up and tell the story..tell the whole story..
The truth will come out at the end & both the cprc as well as you Mary will end up with egg on your faces.
Dear Closeted cops:
Thank you for your comments. Your attempts at caustic humor have greatly improved since your previous visits here.
As for gold statues, no I don't think so. I think that any such statue should go to RPOA president Pat McCarthy for that letter he wrote that was published in the PE this morning. Best written campaign speech during an election year. Plus, he has become more selective with his adjective and adverb usage which makes his prose flow more clearly. It was a good effort if questionable in a factual sense.
This letter is just of many examples as to why I thought the comments slamming him on several threads on this blog were a bit unfair. McCarthy has never failed in his other job. If his actions are ever questionable, his loyalty is not. When it comes to proving he's down with the "troops", McCarthy is true-blue.
And he's proven how little the RPD has changed in seven years despite the cosmetic surgery.
However, in his letter, he wound up slamming the troops, in his defense of Wilson's conduct only those who feel it won't say anything because of the never-changing climate in the RPD. They are not quite as shy outside the department.
I'm not quite sure why walking up to a stationary vehicle and shooting four times into a car from a position of safety is courageous, or filled with valor but then there's elements of the police culture at the RPD which will probably always remain a mystery to most of us.
But it's his job to do and he's doing it. If he doesn't, the union will elect someone else who will do it for it. David Martin, or Kent Tutwiler.
As for the family, they merely presented another side of their loved one, you know, the side of Ms Lane that's not included in the OIS investigative report. Or the media. If you did not like what you saw on television, there's something called a remote.
The truth? I believe the truth is inside the investigative report submitted by the OIS Team from the RPD.
Have you read it? Or are you just listening to the rumor mill? You know, the same rumor mill that told you that the whole shooting was videotaped? By now, you should know that's not true. What else have you been told that might not be true?
Go ahead, I recommend that you read your investigative report. It'll take a few hours to go through it. Then come back and have a discussion.
take care,
Oh, and the truth as you called it finally came out on Sept. 28, 2005 and it sure did not come from the police department...
So as you see it, now even the D.A.'s office is corrupt. Right... cprc's investigator (if that’s what you want to call him) interviewed a hand full of people compared to RPD & DA's office who interviewed a hell of a lot more "witnesses". I'm sure Officer Wilson is sorry that the final incident happened out of view of the surveillance camera since you & idiots like you believe he was in control of the violent attack against him. Oh wait, by cprc's & your take, the attack never occurred. He just picked Ms. (I'm an angel minding my own business before I was shot) Lane randomly & shot her. The witnesses calling during that time were also conspiring with him by falsely reporting that she was repeatedly running over him. The only thing that came out Sept. 28 is proof that the cprc is worthless because their report is a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear closeted cop:
Thank you for your comments. Wow, your rephrasing and creative amendments to what I stated just show your need to sidestep the real issues with this shooting and its investigation.
I am a bit confused about your reference involving the D.A.'s office. What do they have to do with a department's administrative investigation? Nothing at all. The administrative and criminal investigations are entirely separate and involve different sets of criteria when it comes to decision whether or not a shooting is justified. Don't they teach you officers these things when they hire you, or in the academy? I also seem to remember you once said you took classes or received training in this area?
As for whether or not the D.A.'s office is corrupt, those are your words, not mine. It's a convenient strawman argument to throw out while you are working your way down to the kitchen sink, I guess. Ditto, the ongoing focus on Wilson's veracity, and the focus on the altercation rather than the shooting itself.
The department simply used the DA's decision not to prosecute Wilson as a way of getting around the fact that it is prohibited by state PC 832.7 from revealing the outcome of its own administrative review to the public. Since it couldn't say or state that it had exonerated its officer, it instead referred to the D.A.'s decision to defend its own administrative findings, even though the two investigative processes have nothing to do with each other.
The RPD interviewed 25 witnesses in its canvass, many of whom heard shots fired but did not witness the actual shooting. Thirteen of those were interviewed more closely, only two more than the CPRC's investigator interviewed.
If there are a "hell of a lot more witnesses" than 25 and 13 respectively, then the department has withheld their names, contact information and statements from the CPRC. If they overwhelmingly agreed with Wilson's version, I highly doubt the department would have withheld them. I do not believe it did.
Thirteen witnesses is hardly a "handfull[sic]". If you count all the witnesses to the prior six fatal officer-involved shootings together, now indeed THAT would constitute a "handful" in comparison.
The department also failed to interview three witnesses located by the CPRC investigator, who btw is a retired FBI agent,(and in irony, it's usually the feds who turn their noses down at the local agencies), even though it took their names and contact information. Two of those witnesses saw the shooting take place. If you have read the CPRC public report, then that's good. You know who they are and what they said they saw.
The one witness out of 13 who said he actually saw Wilson get his leg run over once had been drinking heavily prior to the incident. He also made statements in his interview which contradicted Wilson's(including Wilson being a foot away from the window when he fired his gun) and those of other witnesses.
Wilson himself allegedly told the security guard that he had been bumped three times. The next day, he told RPD investigators that he had been run over twice.(see Bowie interview, Wilson interview)
As for those witnesses calling for police assistance, three phone calls were made to the department. Two of those were made on landline phones inside the store, but through the department's nonemergency number rather than 9-11. A third phone call was made on 9-11 on a cell phone. No one intervened to help the officer who was being run over repeatedly. If I saw that, and I were on a landline phone, I'd call 9-11, not 787-7911, a number you'd call to report vandalism or other examples of public nuisances.
If you were a civilian and you saw an officer getting run over multiple times, wouldn't you intervene either instinctively or because your conscience dictated that you do so? As a civilian, I certainly would without hesitation, even if it were you. Even if it were the officer who "prayed" I was the victim of a violent crime. What would there be to think about?
No backup responded to these complaints that Wilson was repeatedly getting run over by Lane. And none of these people who made these calls for help made similar statements to the police OR the CPRC's investigator in their respective interviews because only one witness said that he saw Wilson's leg get run over once and he did not make a phone call for assistance.
One 11-11 call for help was issued by Helicopter Pilot Paul Benoit. Strange that it was not an 11-99 instead if Wilson was being run over, as you said, repeatedly. Why call for one squad car, when you could get every squad car from any agency in the city to respond to someone in a "violent" fight being run over repeatedly?
Still, no officer appears onscene to assist Wilson until after the "shots fired" call, then they all show up. Whether that is due to being on prior calls, staffing shortages or for other reasons, remains unclear. The CPRC was correct when it stated in its report that the department was "woefully understaffed". That is an issue that should have been addressed in Mr. McCarthy's letter.
As for whether or not Wilson was "in control" of the attack, the answers to that are in the transcripts of his interview. When asked several times if he was not in control, he answered in the negative, saying that in fact he had control of the situation but was having difficulty handcuffing Chris Grotness, except for a brief time early on when his attempts to apply the cartoid restraint failed and he was on his back. So if I follow your assertion otherwise, then I would have to discount what Wilson said in his interview. By the time Wilson left Grotness to shoot Lane, even Grotness said that his legs were too spent to have fled.
Having a video depiction of an incident is always useful, if it is clear resolution. This is one reason why the stipulated agreement required the implementation of video cameras in squad cars and inside the roll call room at Lincoln Station. In this case, it's impossible to know for sure who would be truly sorry about that.
What came out in the CPRC meeting on Sept. 28 was that the department's version of the shooting it presented last December was false and based on nothing uncovered in its own investigation. Now, if a shooting is so by the book as you would say, why would the department need to present a false version to the CPRC and the public? Why, indeed?
Why did the department pretty much accurately describe the narrative for six prior officer-involved shootings but get this one so wrong, even when its own interdepartmental memos(see RPD investigate report) gave clear descriptions of what actually happened, before that briefing took place?
Btw, thanks for calling me an "idiot". From you, that's a complement indeed. :-)
I'll let you go back to your reading since it's clear by your comments that you have the reports right in front of you, and have a nice day,
Hey Mary-
Soon you will realize the CPRC is powerless. They have no authority over RPD. There opinions are like "assholes", every one has one. Keep writing your views in here... It's intertaining at the least. By the way...I hear you are an old hippy. Shave you arm pits..its the year 2005. Maybe if you burned your bra at the city council meeting someone will pay attention to you. See ya Tuesday...
my bad...i meant "entertaining"..wouldnt want you to think I'm ignit
Dear Closeted cop:
LOL...some people have more than one...opinion that is. ;-)
Poor spelling aside, you're a pretty funny guy and it is always good to see humor, because the type of humor used by a person tells you a lot about that person. It also tells you why they are using it.
I've found your contributions here as well as those made by the other closeted cops to be if not exactly entertaining, at least informative and very helpful in understanding how pervasive this police culture really is and what it entails. Keep up the good work.
An old hippy? Hardly. You should not believe everything the little guy tells you. You are not the first person to come to me with one of his wild tales including another person just last week, though this is the first time I've heard this one. It's always good to keep material fresh, I guess. What's puzzled me all these years is why, the need for him to engage in such story-telling in the first place?
As for the issue of bra burning, it's actually never been done in the United States. That, is what is known as an urban legend. Still, I'll take the comment in the sexist flavor that it was intended. It hardly surprises me that the RPD has a culture where sexism continues to flourish unchecked, video-taped roll call sessions or not. Racism has reared its head here on the comment thread, why not sexism?
After all, if you feel so free to share sexist humor on this site, why not inside a departmental facility? Or out in the field?
I do believe that sexism is an issue that is probably not appropriately covered through the department's state-mandated diversity training. Perhaps, there needs to be some improvement there, as your workforce becomes increasingly female.
Though, the gender dynamics in law enforcement are changing and will continue to change, as does the style of policing.
Experts do say that as law enforcement evolves from parimilitary style policing to community orienting problem solving policing, then it will probably also evolve to being a profession dominated by women and less by men. A reality which will save taxpayers millions of dollars in excessive force and domestic violence law suits. Male officers are just more expensive, than female officers, in the long run though there are many fine ones.
Your post shows that you feel uncomfortable dealing with the issue of the Lane shooting. That's probably because you rely on the rumor mill and not other sources to get your information so you can not really discuss it in any factual sense. And since you can not do that, you decide to try and slam a woman on her physical appearance to make yourself feel more assured, more emotionally secure when you feel anything but. I am old enough to recognize this behavior when I see it.
It's also simply another in a large series of defense mechanisms to avoid dealing with the issue at hand.
As far as the CPRC being powerless, I almost believed that this was true, until recently and part of what changed my mind were the actions taken by your union.
This past week really showed that it does exercise considerable power. When I read the letters in the Reader's Forum protesting against it and calling for its disbandment, I thought wow, it really does have some teeth. If it were truly powerless and seen as such by the RPOA and the department, the letter page would have been empty.
I'd say the actions of the police union point to the contrary. If that body were truly powerless, then Det. Rick Cobb and Sgt. Pat McCarthy would never have bothered to write letters to the PE challenging its authority now, would they? They would have done like you did and just laughed at the CPRC amongst themselves, not write letters to launch a counterattack to the finding. They would have sat back and waited for the city to issue a final disposition in their favor, only they knew they could not afford to wait, nor could they trust the city to rule in Officer Wilson's favor because the truth is, they fear that the CPRC's finding might be backed by the city. That means that the CPRC not only has power, but also has authority over the RPD. In a sense because these police representatives have through their own actions, given it that power.
In addition, those letters were written because it's an election year and the masses probably clamored them to respond to the CPRC's finding on Officer Wilson. If McCarthy had sat this one out, it could cost him his re-electon next month and that of his cabinet. If the CPRC had little power, then he would not feel that pressure to write a rather stellar letter.
If the CPRC were truly powerless, the RPOA leadership would not have spent thousands of dollars last year against the CPRC's inclusion in the city charter, not to mention the tens of thousands of dollars spent on backing city council candidates who opposed the CPRC during the 2001 and 2003 electon cycles.
Not to mention, you probably wouldn't be here writing that it has little power, in more of an effort to convince yourself of that fact than to convince me.
See you at city council and take care,
p.s. Thanks for the beauty tip. I'll worry about how my armpits look on television when you invest in a toupee and hit the treadmill once in a while. Some of you guys look like a run around the block would knock you flat on your back. Deal? :-)
Time will prove to you that the cprc is powerless. RPOA spent money trying to get rid of cprc so that the city would stop waisting money on them & put it to better use. P.S.: its not just one person writing in these post as you stated above.
"Don’t they teach you officers these things". You mean like the hundred of training hours the cprc has??? Or the massive experience the "school security guard" I mean RCC cop (yeah right!!) in the cprc has?? And who is side stepping the issues?? I did not hear a reply on the Ms. I'm jus an angel minding my own business & got shot for no reason Lane comment. I can tell you why! Because you know damn well she was running over Officer Wilson & not just parked waiting for her friend who was just shopping & not committing a felony.
1) No backup responded to these complaints that Wilson was repeatedly getting run over by Lane.
2) One 11-11 call for help was issued by Helicopter Pilot Paul Benoit. Strange that it was not an 11-99 instead if Wilson was being run over, as you said, repeatedly. Why call for one squad car.
Mary, you sure are a SWATologist expert in police tactics. You & the cprc are full of expertise for sure. Let me help you. 1) There were units enroute even before Officer Wilson arrived due to a felony being committed & even before the violent attack on him. See contrary to your belief, we can't just beam up to a scene. We need to drive to the call (of course from a donut shop to make you feel better about it). 2) 11-11 is not a one-unit response. It is an EMERGENCY back up with several units responding. 11-99 is reserved for the worst-case scenario which would have been Lane being successful in her attempt to kill the officer. If you want more schooling in police tactics, try to make the grade & go to the academy.
Dear closeted cops #1 and 2:
Thank you for your insightful comments. Thanks also, for sticking to the topic at hand. It is appreciated.
Thanks also for sharing your sentiment that the CPRC is powerful enough that you still want to get rid of it. Not that ths is really any surprise to most of us.
As for the CPRC being a waste of money, its annual budget is miniscule when stacked up against the $20 million or so spent on trying to rehabilitate this department and bring it up to code, so to speak. Probably the best money ever spent by the city. Certainly much better than the millions paid out annually in civil litigation in connection with the department for quite a few years.
If you are "experts" in police tactics, it's because the tax payers of this city have paid a fortune to ensure that our police officers aren't nearly shooting each others' heads off while trying to unload their weapons(in one case several times)in terror at an unconscious Black woman inside a car while a sergeant and a former SWAT team member do nothing but watch.
Or "incorrectly" applying the cartoid restraint on individuals, costing the city another $3 million in civil litigation, in relation to four incustody deaths in three years.
Or engaging in tactically questionable incidents, including one in 1992, where one officer shot another accidently in the arm, and then in confusion, both of them unloading their weapons at an unarmed man nearby. (1992)
Or crashing police vehicles while on duty which costs us another half a million or so annually in civil litigation usually paid out quickly and quietly by the city. This problem has not been addressed at all by the department or the city, as the threat to the safety of both officers and members of the public that it is.
Or the department failing to perform adequate background checks and psychological testing on officers to ensure that we do not have officers who molest small children, assault motorists in road-rage incidents, are involved in hit and run accidents while drunk, engage in domestic violence, engage in assaults off-duty against family members or strangers. Besides the harm to the victims, these acts also result in more expensive litigation by the city.
Interestingly enough, when officers commit felonies even violent ones, somehow they are characterized much differently by officers, than someone like Lane. They are never portrayed as criminals, just ahem, nice hard-working people. That's a topic in itself.
In addition, because the city did not adequately screen officer candidates in the past, failure to do so properly resulted in hundreds of thousands perhaps millions paid out in "stress" and "physical disability" retirements, mostly involving officers with between three to eight years experience by 2002.
Or the failure to train officers to correctly conduct traffic pretext stops that were in compliance with both state law and the state's constitution and not in violation of both, causing you guessed it, more civil litigation.
Or having in place and implementing a complaint procedure which did not violate PC 832.5 and the state constitution. Failure to follow the law resulted in many of the city's residents having little or no confidence in the complaint process, one reason why Measure II passed the muster of voters so easily last year. The main reason why the CPRC was created in the first place.
The list goes on, and it's all in the complaint filed under "The People of the State of California vs the city of Riverside" filed in March 2001. I'm assuming there has also been some hours of training addressing that.
It's because the state AG office had to threaten to sue this department that the police officers of today are considerably better-trained in "police tactics" than officers were in the past. The city and the police union fought hard and long against reforms which have helped insure that proper and legal "police tactics" are taught to officers today. Fortunately, for most of the newer officers who are now employed by the department today, the city, department and police union were unsuccessful in their efforts and finally faced the inevitable, that it was time to reform and move away from what Bill Lockyer and Chief Leach called, the "cowboy culture".
However, while it may be natural to feel confident in your understanding of "police tactics" and to an extent, perfectly healthy, it's confidence, based on recent changes in the department that are only several years old.
Incidently, some of those who fought hardest against those changes are the same folks who post here. It is also why they do so.
Speaking of which, I am aware that there is more than one officer here. You share defense mechanisms, but not syntax styles and it's customary within your culture to act in groups, rather than as individuals which is supported by the pattern of activity seen here. However, since you have chosen to remain in the blue closet and not identify yourselves when you post here, you can hardly blame me for addressing you as the same person named Anonymous. LOL.
In regards to calls for emergency response, I sat in court and listened when one of your lieutenants testified under oath in court about the meaning of the two calls for assistance, the 11-11 and the 11-99. He testified that the 11-99 is an emergency response to an emergency situation. However, when asked what would constitute an emergency, he testifed that it could be a shooting, a car accident or a serious fight. He testified again under oath that an 11-11 call was a one unit code three which would have the authority to dispatch other nearby units.
I took him at his word, because I figured as you have said, that with hours of POST traning at the academy, not to mention 13 years of experience on the force including several promotions, that he would know what he was talking about. I am not sure what his motive would be for testifying to false information about departmental policy as it would seem to be absent in this situation. What the department had in writing, now that it's actually putting its policies in writing, was similar to his testimony.
The disagreement that appears to exist within the department in terms of the implementation of such crucial response policies may have been one of the reasons why the State AG took such a close look at this agency in the first place. I thought that particular problem had been solved.
As to the Lane situation...
An officer being run over repeatedly(which differs somewhat with the evidence but that's another point to address at another time) would constitute a life and death emergency, one would think. Certainly that was how the situation was painted after it happened! That is how it's been portrayed on this thread.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks you can beam from the donut shop, the Jurupa 7-11 or any place else for that matter to the scene. That comment seems rather silly in context to the rest of your comments.
Having waited considerable time in the past for officers to respond to neighborhood shootings, drive-bys and other violent felonies, I certainly do not believe it. Having spent nights sitting with scared women waiting futily for police officers to come in response to breakins in their homes while they were sleeping, having once sat on the curb with a shocked couple who were driving along and were shot at, waiting for police response(thankfully a bit less than an hour away), no, I would never even make such a silly statement myself.
As for not addressing your posts which is a bit silly as well given how few of mine you've addressed, that point is taken.
However, I believe that the comment on Lane made by one officer here would be best addressed within a separate thread, because it is part of a larger topic which is one that really should be examined. Thanks for the inspiration, btw.
I'm also puzzled at the comment about needing to go to the academy. After all, we all know that the first thing new officers are told by their FTOs, is to "forget everything you learned in the academy". LOL.
Have a nice day,
HA, STILL DANCED AROUND THE TOPIC OF LANE RUNNING OVER THE OFFICER. I WONT HOLD MY BREATH FOR THAT OTHER THREAD. THANK YOU FOR VALIDATING THAT FACT BY NOT REPLYING. SEE THAT SMALL FACT IS THE REASON SHE WAS SHOT, PERIOD. NOW THAT WE HAVE AGREED THAT SHE WAS NOT JUST IN THE PARKING LOT SMOKING HER METH PIPE, MOVE ON TO ANOTHER THREAD.
Dear Closeted Cop:
Stop shouting, LOL! Take a deep breath....there...feel better? I hope you are more calm when working out in the field than you are here. Maybe you need a time out?
On the other hand, if the problem is, that your keyboard just got stuck, there's a button on the left hand side that will fix that. :-)
I don't expect you to hold your breath for the new thread. After all, patience obviously is not one of your strong points. If you do not like the discussions here, or do not find them as entertaining as you said, remember you came here because you were told to do so. I did not seek you out.
I addressed the statement made by one of the officers earlier that alleged that the officer was run over multiple times, with excerpts from your agency's own investigation. Having read through the interviews, this allegation apparently made by civilian witnesses that Wilson was run over repeatedly by Lane's car astonished me! Why, because NOT ONE of the witnesses interviewed said this! But then I do not have access to the same rumor mill that you are exposed to daily, a rumor mill that no doubt has been working overtime since the CPRC issued its finding on the Lane shooting. You believe that Wilson was run over multiple times because other officers told you so and they knew that you would believe anything they said without question. That's part and parcel of existing within the police culture. You do not have a choice in the matter.
But some of us do not face that daily burden of having to fit in such a rigid and demanding environment where loyalty to the brotherhood is expected at all times, or else the brotherhood won't help you when it is your turn. We do have a choice to access the facts ourselves, not that the city especially its legal department(you know, the one that handles claims involving civil liability)make it very easy particularly with this shooting.
Consequently, we read reports, documents and listen to taped interviews to figure out amidst the pile of paperwork what really did happen. What really happened does not seem to match the water cooler discussions in the department. That's hardly surprising.
It is you who chose to ignore the answers I have given to your questions, while playing ignorant with that fact as well as the other facts and doing the little dance about how you "won" the discussion. Better to do that, than think about the possibility that what your brotherhood told you might not be the absolute truth.
In the forum of debate and discussion, that is what is known as a "reversal", just so you know.
As far as your "fact" is concern, it's not all that clear that it's a fact at all. According to your department's investigation, Wilson told the security guard that he was bumped by Lane's car, not run over repeatedly by it. That version of events did not come until the next day. So you either stand by and behind the investigation done by your agency or you don't.
More "facts":
It was Lt. Jeffrey Collapy who first claimed that Wilson had suffered a broken ankle, a "fact" later proven to be false, or at the very least premature.
The department claimed on Dec. 22 that Wilson was lying on the ground behind Lane's car and shot at it as it approached him. Why, and this question has been repeatedly ignored, did the department circulate an error-filled story to the public and the CPRC, when it knew the whole time(and there is written documentation in the investigative report to prove this which you would know if you actually read it)that Wilson walked up to Lane's window and fired four shots?
I learned that when the department starts circulating erroneous information about a shooting, it does not bode well for that shooting. Tyisha Miller, involving the she-fired-first-from-an-inoperable-gun narrative, was one example and now the Lane shooting.
So you can believe what you want, and spout as facts what you hear second-hand from your leadership, but the fact is, that the department did not want the public to know the details behind this shooting, last December. They wanted the public and the CPRC to believe that Wilson was about to be run over immediately before he fired his gun. Why is that, do you think? One would think if the situation was as dire for Wilson as you and others paint it, then the narrative he and other witnesses provided of this incident would have stood well enough on its own, when faced by public scrutiny. There would have been no need to create a more "dire" story, than the truth.
Guess someone in administration did not think the "truth" was good enough.
There's a lot of dancing going around on this thread, whether in lower or UPPER case, and I expect to see lots more, because this situation will probably take several months or longer to resolve itself.
Looking forward to a lot more dancing ahead....
Have a nice day,
Will any of it involve some dirty dancing Mary? A little bump & grind maybe?
Dear Closeted Cop, lover of ampersands:
LOL.
What we have at work here, is one of the main defense mechanisms for LE officers: sexist or sexual humor. Why am I not surprised, given the prevalence of sexism within this profession to see it here too?
Anything to avoid the topic at hand, I guess. You'll probably enjoy the topic on female officers in law enforcement much better than this one!
have a nice day,
I guess I'll take your answer as a no :(
Dear Closeted Cop:
Hmmm...the defensive walls are certainly up if you need to continue to hide behind sexist humor. Still, it beats the saber rattling "Serpico" is doing on the other thread, which is his defense mechanism of choice.
Though you do dance a pretty good two-step.
Have a good holiday,
Say Mary I'm new here. What is the cprc?
Well, it really depends on whom you ask. ;-)
Some think it's a commission set up and mandated recently by the voters to oversee the department's complaint system and the investigations of officers' incustody deaths.
Others, as you can see, believe it's just another four letter word.
But the acronym stands for, Community Police Review Commission. It was established by an ordinance passed by the city council in April 2000 and began receiving complaints in January 2001.
When it became politicized by the city council(after the election of four candidates backed by the police union's PAC), there was an effort made first by the members of the city charter review committee and then local community members to place it out of harm's way in the city's charter. The voters passed that measure overwhelmingly in every precinct in the city.
The RPOA leadership launched a rather creative, if a bit desparate campaign to fight the measure by stating that if you voted it, do not expect the police officers to come to your house if you were a crime victim, without ever establishing the correlation between the CPRC's existance and officer call response times.
I think many people were turned off by this negative campaign, and from what I heard, many officers who were not in the know that this was how their hard-earned dues were being spent felt betrayed and embarassed to be associated with the campaign. A few actually voted in favor of the measure in protest.
The relationship between the the police union and the CPRC continues on its somehow scitzoid effective pattern. One minute, they claim it has it has no authority over the RPD, the next, they either want to disband it or sue it. They can never seem to make up their minds.
Dear Mary;
I have not had the pleasure of meeting you, but I suspect that I will gain your acquaintance in the future.
I have read your post pertaining to women in law enforcement and while you make a few valid points, you are wildly inaccurate in the vast majority of your statements/beliefs. You are especially confused pertaining to “extravagant” sums paid out by municipalities as the result of excessive force settlements/judgments vs. percentages of total municipal liabilities paid out on a per annum basis. Similarly, you conveniently exclude all statistics associated with “workers compensation/injured on duty” costs, comparing female officers and male officers in ACTUAL PATROL functions. I will not even touch upon actual sick time used and maternity leave used with regard to percentages over a standard ten year period of service. That’s right Mary, the number of women who obtain service retirements in actual patrol work over a standard twenty year career period is so statistically insignificant that it cannot even be reliably deduced from the strata available.
But it is easy to understand why you arrive at your conclusions. Ignorance. And I use that particular word with no maliciousness whatsoever. You are very limited in your life experience… not entirely your fault, as it appears that life has dealt you quite a challenging hand. To your credit, it appears that you have embraced your difficult socio-economic station in life. However, what puzzles me, and others like me, is your willingness to expend your energies in a “Don Quixote like” odyssey against a police department, instead of working to improve your own personal plight in life. Bizarre.
I hate to be the one to break it to you Mary, but the reality is that no one cares.
And in this society, like it or not, “no one” means, the people who count. The people who have good jobs, live in nice houses, and who’s kids actually attend school. The solid middle class in America (and Riverside) cares more about whether their seven year old daughter’s soccer game this Saturday is going to be rained out, than if a police officer’s shooting on the Eastside was within department policy or was not within department policy.
I believe that this is not an indictment of the values of Middle Americans (and Riversiders) but rather a testament to the progress that we have made as a society as a whole. They (the Middle Class) no longer need to worry about the actions or inactions of their police department, or the fire department or the water department, as our forefathers did as recently as one hundred years ago. Middle Americans have faith in these public institutions to “take care of them” so that they can concentrate on the really important things in life, like making sure that the kids have enough snacks and soda to celebrate the victory at the ballfield on Saturday.
So feel free to continue your pointless attack on the Riverside Police Department. The biggest hoot, Mary, is that you don’t even know who the enemy is. I am not a public policy analyst or a statistician, but in studying the data provided by the City of Riverside, it appears that over 4/5ths of the patrol division (the officers who actually answer 911 calls,-not including traffic, motorcycle officers, air support, community policing, school resource, UNET) was hired AFTER the Miller shooting/State Attorney General Consent Decree! Furthermore, unless I have been the victim of misinformation, the Officer involved in the Summer Lane Shooting was also hired AFTER the consent decree!
So what is your point, Mary??? Are you angry at the RPD Command Staff, the senior RPD Officers (hired prior to 2001), or the newer RPD Officers (hired after 2001) ? It appears that the newer RPD officers are the officers whom have been involved in almost every single officer involved shooting within the last three years. So have these “new” Officers already been “corrupted”, or were they “corrupted” before they got to RPD? And what of the State Attorney General and his “Grand RPD Consent Decree Experiment?” A complete and total waste of time, resources and MONEY?
Good luck Mary. I propose a toast to Titanium Jousting Poles. Your gonna need ‘em.
Sincerely,
Innocent Bystander.
Mary, back to the dance invite. You still haven't officially said yes or no. Like they say, if you can't beat them, join them. Who knows, you might convert me instead. Either way, it would be fun. No defensive walls here, just trying to hook up with you. If nothing else, you might get some dirt out of me in the heat of passion. Just think of the possibilities.
Dear Bystander:
Thank you for your comments. I guess someone felt like they needed your help about now, lol, but it is nice to see you here.
As to your comments, which were most interesting:
I have read your post pertaining to women in law enforcement and while you make a few valid points, you are wildly inaccurate in the vast majority of your statements/beliefs. You are especially confused pertaining to “extravagant” sums paid out by municipalities as the result of excessive force settlements/judgments vs. percentages of total municipal liabilities paid out on a per annum basis. Similarly, you conveniently exclude all statistics associated with “workers compensation/injured on duty” costs, comparing female officers and male officers in ACTUAL PATROL functions. I will not even touch upon actual sick time used and maternity leave used with regard to percentages over a standard ten year period of service. That’s right Mary, the number of women who obtain service retirements in actual patrol work over a standard twenty year career period is so statistically insignificant that it cannot even be reliably deduced from the strata available.
Just curious, what points did you agree with? And why did you choose not to express them? Was it the company here?
Actually, between 2001 and 2003, female officers were over represented in physical and psychological retirements, when compared to male officers. They were at least a 1/3 of those retirements at a time they were about 8% of the officers in the department. It might be different now.
The study cited and others done by individual law enforcement agencies address ONLY law suit settlements or verdicts pertaining to law suits filed alleging one of the following:
Excessive Force
Lethal Force
Sexual Assaul
Domestic Violence
What else is paid out is irrevelent here, as sick leave, pregnancy leave, etc. are natural events. Sick leave, pregnancy leaves have little to do with the city's decision to pay out on the above types of law suits. Nice side track, and an interesting contribution to the discussion.
.
But it is easy to understand why you arrive at your conclusions. Ignorance. And I use that particular word with no maliciousness whatsoever. You are very limited in your life experience… not entirely your fault, as it appears that life has dealt you quite a challenging hand. To your credit, it appears that you have embraced your difficult socio-economic station in life. However, what puzzles me, and others like me, is your willingness to expend your energies in a “Don Quixote like” odyssey against a police department, instead of working to improve your own personal plight in life. Bizarre.
I think you meant malice and thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
Ignorant, not really. I used to be. I think that began to change about 15 years ago when I and other bystanders tried to call for help because a man in a suit was yelling and waving a gun around. I crawled beneath a car to get away, then into the store. We called for help, turns out he was a detective. Never gave any indication that was what he was, or what he was doing. Most of us thought he was a 51/50, because at that time, there were lots of murder/suicides going on by disgruntled employees at their workplaces. I've had a gun held to my head before. This officer's behavior scared me almost as much. Did he have a job to do? Yes he did. But where was he doing it? In one of those neighborhoods filled with a lot of good people, a few bad ones. None of whom of course would matter if we used your criteria of who "matters" as a point of measurement. So if a few of them got caught in any potential cross-fire including myself, it didn't matter. These aren't people after all.
When stacked against what you consider to be "life experience" this probably wouldn't amount to much either.
What I've learned and always found somewhat bizarre, is that any criticism of what LE officers do, is akin to committing an act of betrayal against them. Especially when someone within their own ranks does the criticizing. Small wonder, that LE agencies get themselves into situations where outside bodies have to come and institute reforms for them to implement.
Still, there are only about a dozen consent decrees or stipulated judgments in this country. The RPD is in a very small group.
Your contention that the entire country consists of middle-class individuals, like yourself appears to be a bit narrow, don't you think? It isn't, and no, they aren't the only people in this country who are "good" and who count, though the espousing of these beliefs explains quite a bit. And I've heard from many middle-classed individuals like yourself who believe differently than you do. You constitute a population of middle-classed individuals but not the only group. There are others. It was some of those middle-classed individuals who pushed hard for civilian review AND departmental reform in the first place. It never would have happened otherwise. It never would have ALMOST happened at least three other times, as mentioned by AG Bill Lockyer.
As for being puzzled, I have no doubt about that and can offer no quick remedy or solution for you. If you want to know how to address that, just reread your previous words over and over, until you experience that "click" moment.
As for no one caring, that might very well be, but I think you should know that not everyone in the city comes to you and vets their opinion on these issues to you first, before expressing them. Maybe in your personal circle what you said is true. But in other circles, it's very different. If it hadn't been, then this "grand experiment" as you call it wouldn't be here. Neither would the CPRC, which by the way, is still here thanks to the majority of voters in this city. To me, that shows a lot of caring about the importance of police accountability, separate from the text book lesson the RPOA gave them through its ill-advised campaign, on its importance.
If you weren't in this group of voters who passed Measure II because you thought it was irrevelent, less important than a little league game, I believe it is you who constitutes a minority in this city.
So feel free to continue your pointless attack on the Riverside Police Department. The biggest hoot, Mary, is that you don’t even know who the enemy is. I am not a public policy analyst or a statistician, but in studying the data provided by the City of Riverside, it appears that over 4/5ths of the patrol division (the officers who actually answer 911 calls,-not including traffic, motorcycle officers, air support, community policing, school resource, UNET) was hired AFTER the Miller shooting/State Attorney General Consent Decree! Furthermore, unless I have been the victim of misinformation, the Officer involved in the Summer Lane Shooting was also hired AFTER the consent decree!
There's no enemy. It's the police who assume that there must be one, if anyone criticizes them and they treat that person accordingly. They identified themelves as my enemy, and thus have identified me as theirs, because I've criticized their department's practices.
Actually, it's two-thirds of the department that was hired post-consent decree. At first, most of the hires came from local academies. However, this caused the average age and experience of police officers to drop to 23 and three years respectively. The department responded to that by hiring more laterals from other agencies in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, thus raising the mean age to 32 and 10 years respectively.
It is encouraging to see this influx, because the higher these numbers grow, the more they will dilute the numbers and influence of the "old guard". Most of the officers who post here no doubt belong to this "old guard". The newer ones are out there doing their beats.
As for Ryan Wilson being new, you are right. He really wasn't here that long before being involved in two fatal shootings, was he? Raises some issues, doesn't it?
So what is your point, Mary??? Are you angry at the RPD Command Staff, the senior RPD Officers (hired prior to 2001), or the newer RPD Officers (hired after 2001) ? It appears that the newer RPD officers are the officers whom have been involved in almost every single officer involved shooting within the last three years. So have these “new” Officers already been “corrupted”, or were they “corrupted” before they got to RPD? And what of the State Attorney General and his “Grand RPD Consent Decree Experiment?” A complete and total waste of time, resources and MONEY?
Well technically, that's not quite correct. For fatal shootings, there has been more newer officers(though some were laterals)involved in the fatal shootings, and one of the nonfatal shootings. For the nonfatal shootings, the ages and experience levels of the officers skew the other way.
As far as believing that the consent decree was a waste of time and money, I think you are in the minority there, even among your middle-class population group. Though time will tell if it was a worthwhile investment of city funds or not.
I do agree that $20 million is a lot to spend on reforms necessitated from years of neglect by departmental management as well as those in city government.
Good luck Mary. I propose a toast to Titanium Jousting Poles. Your gonna need ‘em.
Thanks for the toast. And the poles. :-)
and btw, I hope you had a quiet night.
Dear Closeted cop:
I have. You must be feeling really defensive today.
have a nice day,
You call it defensive because you seem to have analyzed me over a few posts (& I think you have bunched me up with other posts by other people). I just call it Randy baby. But so that you do not claim to being harassed, I'm dropping it. Sorry it did not work out.
Dear Closeted cop:
LOL.
Harassed? No. Confused, yes. This is a blog, not a singles bar. I assume you understand the difference? Hence, my belief that you are hiding behind a defensive wall.
As for confusing you with other people here, I apologize, but it's sooo difficult to keep you all straight when you have the same name!
have a nice day,
Your right about the blog. Maybe we'll meet in person out there & no need to apologize since we all are using the anonymous button. Glad to see your LOL over my posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home