LAPD: Did the department follow protocol?
"you are no fun any more. it was like a fiesta...they thought if they hit the mexicans hard enough, candy would come out. iz no problum.....jess."
---Some loser troll whose ISP is based in Rosemead, California and about a half dozen other cities in response to one of the May Day posts.
In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is taking a more critical stance against the actions taken by Los Angeles Police Department officers when they charged into MacArthur Park, hitting men, women and children assembled there with batons and shooting them with less lethal shotguns.
(excerpt, Associated Press)
The mayor returned home Friday after cutting short a trade mission to El Salvador and Mexico amid criticism for being out of town since Tuesday's melee at MacArthur Park.
"Like every Angeleno I was deeply, personally troubled by the events of May 1st," the mayor said at City Hall. "Those images hit me in the gut."
"... We don't need a long and lengthy investigation to stand up and speak to the truth. What happened on May 1st was wrong, was wrong," he said.
Villaraigosa had first received news of what had happened while traveling in Central America from reporters there who had greeted him at several national airports with questions about what had happened in L.A.
Entering into the debate, are state legislators who sparked a dispute with the police department's rank and file union, the Police Protective League.
(excerpt)
State legislators, immigration activists and others returned to MacArthur Park on Friday to denounce the department's conduct.
"To say we are outraged is an understatement," said state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. "We want those responsible in the highest levels of the LAPD to pay consequences."
The police union criticized Nunez for what it called "police bashing.
"... Setting up the population to believe that law enforcement is the enemy is a dangerous game," union President Robert Baker wrote in a letter Friday. "It provokes a lethal us-against-them, anti-law enforcement mentality that encourages violence against police officers."
Nunez's spokesman Steve Maviglio said late Friday that the speaker's outrage "should not be misconstrued as attack on the entire LAPD but rather at the command staff and the few officers who were using excessive force ... The police union should be outraged as well since the few who did this tarnishes the reputation of the brave officers who protect and defend us."
So the LAPD's union doesn't want anyone to ask questions or to look into what a small portion of its members just did. That's understandable because that's what it always says and has said, and any examination into its actions is what they call "cop bashing". The leadership believes that publicly, this is the best way for it to respond so that its members don't run them out of those elected positions. It's hard to know what they are thinking privately.
But here's some news for those leaders in case they haven't been paying attention. People don't need a debate or even a dispute to see police as "the enemy" which by the way, is a word chosen for use by the union's leadership in this instance. What happened is that an incident caught on video cameras and shown probably by now, all around the world has sparked serious concerns and discussion about what these LAPD officers and more importantly, their leadership did and why. The LAPD's had more than a few videotaped incidents aired worldwide in the past 10 years so it should know the drill by now.
And when it comes to asking questions about the role of leadership including commanders and captains in this episode, the union leadership should be first in line with the questions about decisions made that impact the actions of its members.
How do you think those people who were sitting in a park relaxing at a permitted rally would view the police officers who assaulted them the other day after what they had experienced at their hands? How do you think many of them view the LAPD right now? As friends who are there to serve and protect them or as something to fear?
The police union could and should also have taken the lead at trying to address the fears that those individuals may have towards its members and try to take an active role at allaying them. There are ways to do so while protecting the rights of due process for those being investigated for this incident.
A group of anarchists based in southern California are also denying that they played a role in what happened on May Day, according to this article in the Los Angeles Times. Chief William Bratton had blamed anarchists for setting off the police department's response and said that they were a growing destructive force in the region.
At least one employee in his agency disagreed.
(excerpt)
Word that anarchists might have played an inciting role in the MacArthur Park confrontation — now the subject of a police excessive-force investigation — also surprised at least one officer who surveils violence-prone provocateurs.
"We haven't seen them in large numbers in L.A.," said the officer, who requested anonymity because he works in the Los Angeles Police Department's counter-terrorism bureau.
Fallen-away anarchists agreed, saying the movement has withered in the area since 2000, when its homegrown ranks were swelled by out-of-town sympathizers drawn to the convention.
Austin Delgadillo, who was part of the L.A. anarchist contingent back then, said he and others have since moved on to more-structured forms of advocacy. And many of the remaining L.A. anarchists have settled into laid-back tactics, Delgadillo said.
"A lot of them are pacifist anarchists," he added.
Bratton had told the media that there were between 50 and 100 anarchists wearing masks throwing objects at the police officers. Accounts from those at the march varied on what had initially happened.
(excerpt)
Meanwhile, some organizers of the immigration march said they spotted fewer than 10 protesters wearing the anarchists' signature black T-shirts and masks.
Jonathan Santi of the Multi-ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network said that he counted only eight anarchists taunting the police outside MacArthur Park and that he saw none of them throw anything. Santi said they shouted vulgarities at the advancing officers and refused commands to disperse.
The marchers tried to herd the anarchists away from the police, but the eight broke free, he said. "I told them to control themselves, that they shouldn't be doing this kind of thing," said Santi, who considers the anarchists partly responsible for the disturbance. The anarchists fled as the police moved into the park, striking demonstrators with batons and firing foam bullets into the crowd, according to Santi and others.
Another Los Angeles Times article argues that the department's failure to follow established procedures for addressing these situations is what led to the melee.
In 2000, similar incidents marred demonstrations at the 2000 Democratic National Convention and these incidents and the injuries they caused led to law suits which the city eventually settled for over $4 million.
Now, as the first law suits in the latest incident are already beginning to be filed today, the department and city officials including Villaraigosa once again are addressing the same issues.
(excerpt)
"There were protocols that were supposed to happen in these kinds of situations," Villaraigosa said. "Clearly, those protocols weren't followed. We've got to ask why, who was responsible and what consequences there are for not following those protocols."
The restrictions ban officers from using "less-than-lethal" weapons on individuals and crowds unless they are combative, require police to give protesters time to clear out of an area before force is used and establish "safe areas" where the media can operate without LAPD interference.
Bratton admitted in the Times article that the May Day incident mirrored what happened in 2000 and said that he was "embarrassed" by his department.
In other news, LAPD officer, Sean Joseph Meade is going to stand trial for criminal charges in connection with an onduty incident where he was caught on a surveillance video camera assaulting a 16-year-old Latino male who was handcuffed at the time. He has been charged with felony assault under the color of authority and lying on a police report about the incident.
Meanwhile in Riverside, an event that honored the Fox Theater, which was seized by the city through eminent domain and then left in its current state for over a year was apparently marred by an incident involving incumbent Councilman Dom Betro making nasty comments to an individual, according to several correspondences I have received. Like I've said, I have been on the receiving end of a nasty diatribe from Betro simply for challenging his claim last October that the city had signed into a contract with a consultant as well as speaking out during the salary negotiations process last summer and autumn so receiving accounts of him doing it to other individuals hardly surprises me. Watching him go off at you is not a pretty sight.
But his key supporters will stand and watch him every single time and say they didn't see a thing. However, then those who aren't quite key or set in their minds, start calling, pulling you aside or emailing you about it.
The Press Enterprise published an article on the Ward Seven candidates this morning and stated that the challengers are distancing themselves from incumbent, Steve Adams who is not having a good election season. That shouldn't be surprising as this is often what incumbents do, to establish their own identities to the voters. Besides Adams, the candidates are Art Garcia, Terry Frizzel, Roy Saldanha and Daniel Gressmann.
Renaissance or redevelopment?
(excerpt)
Adams said the ward is making much progress, because it is receiving millions of dollars for public improvements with the creation of a new redevelopment area and the Riverside Renaissance project.
The ward should have $105 million to spend on long-overdue improvements over the next five years, he said.
"That is $105 million that is desperately needed out here for sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street improvements, park improvements, library improvements ... to restore pride in living in La Sierra," Adams said.
But the challengers questioned whether the city can afford the Renaissance project and what the long-term ramifications are.
"They're going to put us into debt," Frizzel said. "They're borrowing all this money ... that we're going to have to repay over 30 years."
Garcia questioned how the city is going to pay for the Renaissance projects without increasing taxes and without harming public safety services.
"Has it been carefully thought out? Has the council done its homework?" he asked.
Gressmann said the city's budget does not break out the Renaissance costs.
"I would have liked to have been asked, 'What improvements would you like to see?' " he added. "What exactly are we doing, and is this exactly what I want?"
I think it was Saldanha whose Web site actually mentioned that Ward Seven was getting short shrift on the money allocated for this Riverside Renaissance to the tune of a measly $27 million out of the $1.2 billion that will pay for this dream.
The challengers also opposed the Rancho La Sierra housing project which as originally envisioned violated two growth-control laws, Measures C and R, that had been passed by over 2/3 of the city's voters. Law suits were filed and the group of Davids that took on the city's Goliath prevailed, even as they held yard sales to raise money to pay their attorney's appearances in court.
Eminent domain is also a no-no word in this group. Adams himself is not a strong a proponent of eminent domain for single-owned family homes but he along with other members of the BASS quartet have been using eminent domain as a club to push small business owners, primarily those who are Asian-American or Latino to sell their parcels to the city in the downtown area. The city then proposes to sell or has sold those properties purchased through a loan of the city's now-depleted sewer fund to private developers.
Public participation or arrest?
(excerpt)
The challengers are calling for increasing public participation and making city government more responsive and open. City officials, they charge, have reduced public input and discussion, because they have already decided their course of action.
Garcia said he wants to restore citizens' ability to pull items from the consent calendar for discussion at City Council meetings, something that the council eliminated two years ago.
"This council -- good, bad, indifferent -- and the mayor and city manager are perceived as arrogant, pompous, uncaring, disingenuous and quite frankly in a hurry to get out (of meetings)," Garcia said.
Gressmann called the council and city management an "oligarchy ... (that) decided they wanted no involvement from the quote, unquote, peasants as far as what they want to do with the city."
"It needs to be broken up and shaken up," he said.
Saldanha said there is a "real fear" of going to City Hall to speak at council meetings and getting removed and arrested under the new rules.
"They are essentially afraid to come speak to their councilman," he said. "I want the opposite of that. I want people to be able to talk to me directly."
Frizzel said the limited discussions on consent calendar items, where the council approves many spending items that affect residents, are partly what prompted her to run again for the council.
"You don't get a chance to really address that properly," Frizzel said, " and the community should have the right to do that."
---Some loser troll whose ISP is based in Rosemead, California and about a half dozen other cities in response to one of the May Day posts.
In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is taking a more critical stance against the actions taken by Los Angeles Police Department officers when they charged into MacArthur Park, hitting men, women and children assembled there with batons and shooting them with less lethal shotguns.
(excerpt, Associated Press)
The mayor returned home Friday after cutting short a trade mission to El Salvador and Mexico amid criticism for being out of town since Tuesday's melee at MacArthur Park.
"Like every Angeleno I was deeply, personally troubled by the events of May 1st," the mayor said at City Hall. "Those images hit me in the gut."
"... We don't need a long and lengthy investigation to stand up and speak to the truth. What happened on May 1st was wrong, was wrong," he said.
Villaraigosa had first received news of what had happened while traveling in Central America from reporters there who had greeted him at several national airports with questions about what had happened in L.A.
Entering into the debate, are state legislators who sparked a dispute with the police department's rank and file union, the Police Protective League.
(excerpt)
State legislators, immigration activists and others returned to MacArthur Park on Friday to denounce the department's conduct.
"To say we are outraged is an understatement," said state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. "We want those responsible in the highest levels of the LAPD to pay consequences."
The police union criticized Nunez for what it called "police bashing.
"... Setting up the population to believe that law enforcement is the enemy is a dangerous game," union President Robert Baker wrote in a letter Friday. "It provokes a lethal us-against-them, anti-law enforcement mentality that encourages violence against police officers."
Nunez's spokesman Steve Maviglio said late Friday that the speaker's outrage "should not be misconstrued as attack on the entire LAPD but rather at the command staff and the few officers who were using excessive force ... The police union should be outraged as well since the few who did this tarnishes the reputation of the brave officers who protect and defend us."
So the LAPD's union doesn't want anyone to ask questions or to look into what a small portion of its members just did. That's understandable because that's what it always says and has said, and any examination into its actions is what they call "cop bashing". The leadership believes that publicly, this is the best way for it to respond so that its members don't run them out of those elected positions. It's hard to know what they are thinking privately.
But here's some news for those leaders in case they haven't been paying attention. People don't need a debate or even a dispute to see police as "the enemy" which by the way, is a word chosen for use by the union's leadership in this instance. What happened is that an incident caught on video cameras and shown probably by now, all around the world has sparked serious concerns and discussion about what these LAPD officers and more importantly, their leadership did and why. The LAPD's had more than a few videotaped incidents aired worldwide in the past 10 years so it should know the drill by now.
And when it comes to asking questions about the role of leadership including commanders and captains in this episode, the union leadership should be first in line with the questions about decisions made that impact the actions of its members.
How do you think those people who were sitting in a park relaxing at a permitted rally would view the police officers who assaulted them the other day after what they had experienced at their hands? How do you think many of them view the LAPD right now? As friends who are there to serve and protect them or as something to fear?
The police union could and should also have taken the lead at trying to address the fears that those individuals may have towards its members and try to take an active role at allaying them. There are ways to do so while protecting the rights of due process for those being investigated for this incident.
A group of anarchists based in southern California are also denying that they played a role in what happened on May Day, according to this article in the Los Angeles Times. Chief William Bratton had blamed anarchists for setting off the police department's response and said that they were a growing destructive force in the region.
At least one employee in his agency disagreed.
(excerpt)
Word that anarchists might have played an inciting role in the MacArthur Park confrontation — now the subject of a police excessive-force investigation — also surprised at least one officer who surveils violence-prone provocateurs.
"We haven't seen them in large numbers in L.A.," said the officer, who requested anonymity because he works in the Los Angeles Police Department's counter-terrorism bureau.
Fallen-away anarchists agreed, saying the movement has withered in the area since 2000, when its homegrown ranks were swelled by out-of-town sympathizers drawn to the convention.
Austin Delgadillo, who was part of the L.A. anarchist contingent back then, said he and others have since moved on to more-structured forms of advocacy. And many of the remaining L.A. anarchists have settled into laid-back tactics, Delgadillo said.
"A lot of them are pacifist anarchists," he added.
Bratton had told the media that there were between 50 and 100 anarchists wearing masks throwing objects at the police officers. Accounts from those at the march varied on what had initially happened.
(excerpt)
Meanwhile, some organizers of the immigration march said they spotted fewer than 10 protesters wearing the anarchists' signature black T-shirts and masks.
Jonathan Santi of the Multi-ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network said that he counted only eight anarchists taunting the police outside MacArthur Park and that he saw none of them throw anything. Santi said they shouted vulgarities at the advancing officers and refused commands to disperse.
The marchers tried to herd the anarchists away from the police, but the eight broke free, he said. "I told them to control themselves, that they shouldn't be doing this kind of thing," said Santi, who considers the anarchists partly responsible for the disturbance. The anarchists fled as the police moved into the park, striking demonstrators with batons and firing foam bullets into the crowd, according to Santi and others.
Another Los Angeles Times article argues that the department's failure to follow established procedures for addressing these situations is what led to the melee.
In 2000, similar incidents marred demonstrations at the 2000 Democratic National Convention and these incidents and the injuries they caused led to law suits which the city eventually settled for over $4 million.
Now, as the first law suits in the latest incident are already beginning to be filed today, the department and city officials including Villaraigosa once again are addressing the same issues.
(excerpt)
"There were protocols that were supposed to happen in these kinds of situations," Villaraigosa said. "Clearly, those protocols weren't followed. We've got to ask why, who was responsible and what consequences there are for not following those protocols."
The restrictions ban officers from using "less-than-lethal" weapons on individuals and crowds unless they are combative, require police to give protesters time to clear out of an area before force is used and establish "safe areas" where the media can operate without LAPD interference.
Bratton admitted in the Times article that the May Day incident mirrored what happened in 2000 and said that he was "embarrassed" by his department.
In other news, LAPD officer, Sean Joseph Meade is going to stand trial for criminal charges in connection with an onduty incident where he was caught on a surveillance video camera assaulting a 16-year-old Latino male who was handcuffed at the time. He has been charged with felony assault under the color of authority and lying on a police report about the incident.
Meanwhile in Riverside, an event that honored the Fox Theater, which was seized by the city through eminent domain and then left in its current state for over a year was apparently marred by an incident involving incumbent Councilman Dom Betro making nasty comments to an individual, according to several correspondences I have received. Like I've said, I have been on the receiving end of a nasty diatribe from Betro simply for challenging his claim last October that the city had signed into a contract with a consultant as well as speaking out during the salary negotiations process last summer and autumn so receiving accounts of him doing it to other individuals hardly surprises me. Watching him go off at you is not a pretty sight.
But his key supporters will stand and watch him every single time and say they didn't see a thing. However, then those who aren't quite key or set in their minds, start calling, pulling you aside or emailing you about it.
The Press Enterprise published an article on the Ward Seven candidates this morning and stated that the challengers are distancing themselves from incumbent, Steve Adams who is not having a good election season. That shouldn't be surprising as this is often what incumbents do, to establish their own identities to the voters. Besides Adams, the candidates are Art Garcia, Terry Frizzel, Roy Saldanha and Daniel Gressmann.
Renaissance or redevelopment?
(excerpt)
Adams said the ward is making much progress, because it is receiving millions of dollars for public improvements with the creation of a new redevelopment area and the Riverside Renaissance project.
The ward should have $105 million to spend on long-overdue improvements over the next five years, he said.
"That is $105 million that is desperately needed out here for sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street improvements, park improvements, library improvements ... to restore pride in living in La Sierra," Adams said.
But the challengers questioned whether the city can afford the Renaissance project and what the long-term ramifications are.
"They're going to put us into debt," Frizzel said. "They're borrowing all this money ... that we're going to have to repay over 30 years."
Garcia questioned how the city is going to pay for the Renaissance projects without increasing taxes and without harming public safety services.
"Has it been carefully thought out? Has the council done its homework?" he asked.
Gressmann said the city's budget does not break out the Renaissance costs.
"I would have liked to have been asked, 'What improvements would you like to see?' " he added. "What exactly are we doing, and is this exactly what I want?"
I think it was Saldanha whose Web site actually mentioned that Ward Seven was getting short shrift on the money allocated for this Riverside Renaissance to the tune of a measly $27 million out of the $1.2 billion that will pay for this dream.
The challengers also opposed the Rancho La Sierra housing project which as originally envisioned violated two growth-control laws, Measures C and R, that had been passed by over 2/3 of the city's voters. Law suits were filed and the group of Davids that took on the city's Goliath prevailed, even as they held yard sales to raise money to pay their attorney's appearances in court.
Eminent domain is also a no-no word in this group. Adams himself is not a strong a proponent of eminent domain for single-owned family homes but he along with other members of the BASS quartet have been using eminent domain as a club to push small business owners, primarily those who are Asian-American or Latino to sell their parcels to the city in the downtown area. The city then proposes to sell or has sold those properties purchased through a loan of the city's now-depleted sewer fund to private developers.
Public participation or arrest?
(excerpt)
The challengers are calling for increasing public participation and making city government more responsive and open. City officials, they charge, have reduced public input and discussion, because they have already decided their course of action.
Garcia said he wants to restore citizens' ability to pull items from the consent calendar for discussion at City Council meetings, something that the council eliminated two years ago.
"This council -- good, bad, indifferent -- and the mayor and city manager are perceived as arrogant, pompous, uncaring, disingenuous and quite frankly in a hurry to get out (of meetings)," Garcia said.
Gressmann called the council and city management an "oligarchy ... (that) decided they wanted no involvement from the quote, unquote, peasants as far as what they want to do with the city."
"It needs to be broken up and shaken up," he said.
Saldanha said there is a "real fear" of going to City Hall to speak at council meetings and getting removed and arrested under the new rules.
"They are essentially afraid to come speak to their councilman," he said. "I want the opposite of that. I want people to be able to talk to me directly."
Frizzel said the limited discussions on consent calendar items, where the council approves many spending items that affect residents, are partly what prompted her to run again for the council.
"You don't get a chance to really address that properly," Frizzel said, " and the community should have the right to do that."
Adams claimed that his constituents have complained that they are too frightened to come to city council meetings because they have become unruly. I have talked to some of those constituents and if they fear any unruly behavior, it appears to be coming from the dais.
A letter in the newspaper's reader's forum mentioned the double standard on how people who host large parties can be fined in Moreno Valley now, yet DHL can fly its loud airplanes from what used to be March Air Force Base, disrupting the sleep of residents in nearby neighborhoods without incurring any fines.
posted by Five Before Midnight | 9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home