The LAPD's latest videogate
Big problems for the Los Angeles Police Department and its chief, William Bratton continue as the latest troublesome incident involving the department's officers that was caught on videotape has drawn more and more attention around the world.
When L.A.'s mayor Antonio Villaraigosa got off the airplane in both Mexico and El Salvador, he was greeted by officials and media in those countries asking him about that incident in his city. The mayor chose his words carefully and may have wondered privately if he made the right decision to leave town.
Of course, the chief who was supposed to join him on the El Salvador leg of this trip opted to stay at home and face the growing controversy and furor coming from both the communities of L.A. and the media at how representatives of both were treated at the May Day rally at MacArthur Park in the City of the Angels.
Bratton announced that not only would his department be doing at least three separate probes including one mandated by the still-in-place federal consent decree but that the FBI would be doing its own investigation, according to the latest article in the Los Angeles Times.
(excerpt)
Bratton said his own investigations will focus on more than just line officers caught on video, but also on the commanders."I am also looking at [the] totality of what happened," he said, "There were mistakes made here all the way up and down the line. I want to make that clear. This is not a witch hunt focused on line officers."
Those officers "were the ones getting rocks and bottles thrown at them. They were the ones with the agitators in their face," the chief said. But he wants several questions answered, including, he said: "Was there a lack of supervision? Was there a lack of leadership? What were they directed to [do]?"
Police Commission President John Mack said he supported the chief's idea of involving the FBI. "It probably has some merit. The FBI would be a step removed, and independent, and they have the expertise to investigate,'' Mack said. "Also, their conclusions would probably have some additional credibility, especially among those who don't trust the Police Department to look at this.''
A representative from the Police Protective League also spoke to the press on the incident.
(excerpt)
Police union leaders urged Wednesday against a "rush to judgment."
"Our officers gave a legal dispersal order and were met with violence. In the coming days it will become clear what transpired," said Los Angeles Police Protective League President Bob Baker in a statement.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board called the conduct of the LAPD's officers "inexcusable" this morning. The board noted one critical error on the part of the LAPD and that was its apparent decision to issue an order to disperse only in English and from a helicopter, an order that few people may have been able to hear given the noise that helicopters make when they are hovering over an area. In addition, there were likely people present at the march who may have not understood the commands that were given in English at all even if the helicopter's rotors hadn't been drowning out the issued orders to disperse.
And when those orders were apparently given, men, women and children including babies in strollers were sitting on the grassy lawns near the lake of MacArthur Park. That was until a squad of LAPD officers dressed in riot gear ran towards them and began shooting their less-lethal shotguns and waving their batons at them.
Someone from the media called the charge, "ridiculous" given how peaceful the crowds were until the police got there. But tell that to the people whose bodies bore the injuries from the use of these less lethal options against them. Maybe LAPD officers don't look at a peaceful crowd of mostly Latino men, women and children and see the same thing that they would if these people had been White.
The editorial also raises the issue that if you're targeting your armed response at a group of "trouble makers" who are outside of a designated area set aside for a rally, then why are those who were assembled peacefully inside the designated area for the permitted rally the ones who were struck by the officers' batons and less lethal shotguns? Why were the media representatives who were covering the rally also the targets of those batons and less lethal shotguns?
After all, at least 240 less lethal bullets were fired at a group of people, none of whom were arrested. Nine individuals were arrested for a variety of offenses. All of them were part of a separate group located some distance away.
(excerpt)
There may well have been cause for gun-wielding officers in riot gear to shoot nonlethal bullets at troublemakers who left the permitted area and began hurling bottles and other dangerous objects at them. But it's hard to see how it became appropriate for police to shoot at people trying to leave the scene. It's hard to see how it's proper policy to shoot at, push or baton reporters who are trying to document the events. It was hard for Bratton — who expressed "grave concern" — to see why it was appropriate for officers to fire 240 times while arresting none of their targets.
One result of the city's unfortunate heritage of police conflict is an unparalleled system of oversight and investigation. Bratton, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other city leaders are doing a good job at walking that fine line between withholding judgment until the facts are in and expressing concern about what is already known.
But their proper concern for fairness should not obscure what is obvious: The police conduct on view in McArthur Park was inexcusable; those responsible, either for misguided policies or excessive force, should be punished.
One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is that even though it was the riot officers who may have used excessive force in this situation, they were either ordered to do so by their supervisors or their supervisors failed to oversee what was happening properly and then act on it. Sure enough, several unnamed officers in the LAPD told the Times that the department doesn't know where those supervisors were when the officers moved to disperse the people from the park. Is this another incident where the supervisors of the involved officers were missing in action?
It's a safe bet that the actions or inaction of supervisors will be a big topic in upcoming days and weeks as this incident is examined. And Bratton is right in that this is where the focus of investigations should lie rather than just at the door of the officers in riot gear.
The role of supervisors is important for another reason. The LAPD apparently has a practice of placing its less experienced officers at these positions, with the average experience of the officers at about 3-4 years. That was an issue that was raised during investigations into other demonstrations but it's not clear whether the department took any steps to address this situation or to change it.
Then it may also be time to reexamine systematic problems in the LAPD, an agency that has been under a federal consent decree for nearly six years and is still clearly struggling with some of the same issues today.
Steve Lopez, also of the Los Angeles Times criticized the LAPD's actions in his column.
"Double time, it's tussle time."
(excerpt)
Video shot that evening shows police moving in on MacArthur Park like they were taking Iwo Jima. They ordered people involved in peaceful demonstrations to move out. There was confusion, with some people leaving and others lingering as the drama played out.
Then we see officers aiming rifles to fire foam bullets.
We see civilians go down.
We see fear and panic.
We see a man holding a child and running for cover.
We see a nasty bruise on the belly of a man hit with a foam bullet.
We see police wielding batons, ordering reporters to scram, shoving two television cameramen, tussling with another member of the media and pushing Fox 11 news reporter Christina Gonzales away as she tries to help her fallen videographer.
Gonzalez reported that police had ordered her to get into her van and "shut the door." But the reporter, whose husband is a retired LAPD cop, didn't want to be sealed off like that, unable to "videotape some of the other people" who were "getting roughed up, to put it mildly."
She was later taken to the hospital with what she thought was a dislocated shoulder, but she turned out to be OK. She said her videographer was treated for a wrist injury.
"I have never seen anything like this," Gonzalez said on Fox 11 early Wednesday. She said that while police were trying to herd reporters and others out of the way, she heard them laughing and saying: "Double time, it's tussle time."
Actually, this incident mirrors several that took place during the Democratic National Convention that was held in Los Angeles in the summer of 2000.
In between demonstrations that year, two reporters from the Press Enterprise showed me their injuries from getting hit by rubber bullets simply for being in the path of charging LAPD officers in riot gear. Mark Henry had a huge bruise on his stomach, Jennifer Bowles had one to match it on the back of one of her knees. By the end of the convention, I had a nice one on the back of one of my legs I received while about 150 LAPD officers surrounded protesters and decided to charge them with batons and less lethal options, ironically during a march protesting police brutality and misconduct.
But we were lucky. Others had wounds to their heads, faces and necks from rubber bullets, pepper balls and batons.
A man who stumbled over his own feet trying to get away from the charging officers was jumped by six of them right in front of me and they hit him on his head and neck until finally they carried him away unconscious.
Outside this activity, stood representatives from the Department of Justice's Community Relations Division, the National Lawyers' Guild, the ACLU and finally the former chief, Bernard Parks who apparently were "negotiating" whether or not the protest would be allowed to continue.
For about an hour, both police and demonstrators stood, with not enough room between them to slide a ruler through, until finally the order was given by Parks to allow the marchers into the protest zone.
Seven years later, the same issues are being raised again by those who saw or experienced what happened in MacArthur Park in downtown Los Angeles and comparisons have been made to what happened in 2000. The same types of photographs and videos of injured men, women and children are making the rounds. The same promises are being made by those who lead the LAPD to investigate and get to the bottom of the situation. But those same promises which included a 2002 agreement between the LAPD and media outlets in terms of allowing them to do their jobs when police officers disperse crowds, had preceded what took place on May 1, 2007.
People discussing the incident are weighing in here. And at the LAPD's blog.
Other coverage:
L.A. Daily News
Yahoo News
International Herald Tribune
Fox news
When L.A.'s mayor Antonio Villaraigosa got off the airplane in both Mexico and El Salvador, he was greeted by officials and media in those countries asking him about that incident in his city. The mayor chose his words carefully and may have wondered privately if he made the right decision to leave town.
Of course, the chief who was supposed to join him on the El Salvador leg of this trip opted to stay at home and face the growing controversy and furor coming from both the communities of L.A. and the media at how representatives of both were treated at the May Day rally at MacArthur Park in the City of the Angels.
Bratton announced that not only would his department be doing at least three separate probes including one mandated by the still-in-place federal consent decree but that the FBI would be doing its own investigation, according to the latest article in the Los Angeles Times.
(excerpt)
Bratton said his own investigations will focus on more than just line officers caught on video, but also on the commanders."I am also looking at [the] totality of what happened," he said, "There were mistakes made here all the way up and down the line. I want to make that clear. This is not a witch hunt focused on line officers."
Those officers "were the ones getting rocks and bottles thrown at them. They were the ones with the agitators in their face," the chief said. But he wants several questions answered, including, he said: "Was there a lack of supervision? Was there a lack of leadership? What were they directed to [do]?"
Police Commission President John Mack said he supported the chief's idea of involving the FBI. "It probably has some merit. The FBI would be a step removed, and independent, and they have the expertise to investigate,'' Mack said. "Also, their conclusions would probably have some additional credibility, especially among those who don't trust the Police Department to look at this.''
A representative from the Police Protective League also spoke to the press on the incident.
(excerpt)
Police union leaders urged Wednesday against a "rush to judgment."
"Our officers gave a legal dispersal order and were met with violence. In the coming days it will become clear what transpired," said Los Angeles Police Protective League President Bob Baker in a statement.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board called the conduct of the LAPD's officers "inexcusable" this morning. The board noted one critical error on the part of the LAPD and that was its apparent decision to issue an order to disperse only in English and from a helicopter, an order that few people may have been able to hear given the noise that helicopters make when they are hovering over an area. In addition, there were likely people present at the march who may have not understood the commands that were given in English at all even if the helicopter's rotors hadn't been drowning out the issued orders to disperse.
And when those orders were apparently given, men, women and children including babies in strollers were sitting on the grassy lawns near the lake of MacArthur Park. That was until a squad of LAPD officers dressed in riot gear ran towards them and began shooting their less-lethal shotguns and waving their batons at them.
Someone from the media called the charge, "ridiculous" given how peaceful the crowds were until the police got there. But tell that to the people whose bodies bore the injuries from the use of these less lethal options against them. Maybe LAPD officers don't look at a peaceful crowd of mostly Latino men, women and children and see the same thing that they would if these people had been White.
The editorial also raises the issue that if you're targeting your armed response at a group of "trouble makers" who are outside of a designated area set aside for a rally, then why are those who were assembled peacefully inside the designated area for the permitted rally the ones who were struck by the officers' batons and less lethal shotguns? Why were the media representatives who were covering the rally also the targets of those batons and less lethal shotguns?
After all, at least 240 less lethal bullets were fired at a group of people, none of whom were arrested. Nine individuals were arrested for a variety of offenses. All of them were part of a separate group located some distance away.
(excerpt)
There may well have been cause for gun-wielding officers in riot gear to shoot nonlethal bullets at troublemakers who left the permitted area and began hurling bottles and other dangerous objects at them. But it's hard to see how it became appropriate for police to shoot at people trying to leave the scene. It's hard to see how it's proper policy to shoot at, push or baton reporters who are trying to document the events. It was hard for Bratton — who expressed "grave concern" — to see why it was appropriate for officers to fire 240 times while arresting none of their targets.
One result of the city's unfortunate heritage of police conflict is an unparalleled system of oversight and investigation. Bratton, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other city leaders are doing a good job at walking that fine line between withholding judgment until the facts are in and expressing concern about what is already known.
But their proper concern for fairness should not obscure what is obvious: The police conduct on view in McArthur Park was inexcusable; those responsible, either for misguided policies or excessive force, should be punished.
One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is that even though it was the riot officers who may have used excessive force in this situation, they were either ordered to do so by their supervisors or their supervisors failed to oversee what was happening properly and then act on it. Sure enough, several unnamed officers in the LAPD told the Times that the department doesn't know where those supervisors were when the officers moved to disperse the people from the park. Is this another incident where the supervisors of the involved officers were missing in action?
It's a safe bet that the actions or inaction of supervisors will be a big topic in upcoming days and weeks as this incident is examined. And Bratton is right in that this is where the focus of investigations should lie rather than just at the door of the officers in riot gear.
The role of supervisors is important for another reason. The LAPD apparently has a practice of placing its less experienced officers at these positions, with the average experience of the officers at about 3-4 years. That was an issue that was raised during investigations into other demonstrations but it's not clear whether the department took any steps to address this situation or to change it.
Then it may also be time to reexamine systematic problems in the LAPD, an agency that has been under a federal consent decree for nearly six years and is still clearly struggling with some of the same issues today.
Steve Lopez, also of the Los Angeles Times criticized the LAPD's actions in his column.
"Double time, it's tussle time."
(excerpt)
Video shot that evening shows police moving in on MacArthur Park like they were taking Iwo Jima. They ordered people involved in peaceful demonstrations to move out. There was confusion, with some people leaving and others lingering as the drama played out.
Then we see officers aiming rifles to fire foam bullets.
We see civilians go down.
We see fear and panic.
We see a man holding a child and running for cover.
We see a nasty bruise on the belly of a man hit with a foam bullet.
We see police wielding batons, ordering reporters to scram, shoving two television cameramen, tussling with another member of the media and pushing Fox 11 news reporter Christina Gonzales away as she tries to help her fallen videographer.
Gonzalez reported that police had ordered her to get into her van and "shut the door." But the reporter, whose husband is a retired LAPD cop, didn't want to be sealed off like that, unable to "videotape some of the other people" who were "getting roughed up, to put it mildly."
She was later taken to the hospital with what she thought was a dislocated shoulder, but she turned out to be OK. She said her videographer was treated for a wrist injury.
"I have never seen anything like this," Gonzalez said on Fox 11 early Wednesday. She said that while police were trying to herd reporters and others out of the way, she heard them laughing and saying: "Double time, it's tussle time."
Actually, this incident mirrors several that took place during the Democratic National Convention that was held in Los Angeles in the summer of 2000.
In between demonstrations that year, two reporters from the Press Enterprise showed me their injuries from getting hit by rubber bullets simply for being in the path of charging LAPD officers in riot gear. Mark Henry had a huge bruise on his stomach, Jennifer Bowles had one to match it on the back of one of her knees. By the end of the convention, I had a nice one on the back of one of my legs I received while about 150 LAPD officers surrounded protesters and decided to charge them with batons and less lethal options, ironically during a march protesting police brutality and misconduct.
But we were lucky. Others had wounds to their heads, faces and necks from rubber bullets, pepper balls and batons.
A man who stumbled over his own feet trying to get away from the charging officers was jumped by six of them right in front of me and they hit him on his head and neck until finally they carried him away unconscious.
Outside this activity, stood representatives from the Department of Justice's Community Relations Division, the National Lawyers' Guild, the ACLU and finally the former chief, Bernard Parks who apparently were "negotiating" whether or not the protest would be allowed to continue.
For about an hour, both police and demonstrators stood, with not enough room between them to slide a ruler through, until finally the order was given by Parks to allow the marchers into the protest zone.
Seven years later, the same issues are being raised again by those who saw or experienced what happened in MacArthur Park in downtown Los Angeles and comparisons have been made to what happened in 2000. The same types of photographs and videos of injured men, women and children are making the rounds. The same promises are being made by those who lead the LAPD to investigate and get to the bottom of the situation. But those same promises which included a 2002 agreement between the LAPD and media outlets in terms of allowing them to do their jobs when police officers disperse crowds, had preceded what took place on May 1, 2007.
People discussing the incident are weighing in here. And at the LAPD's blog.
Other coverage:
L.A. Daily News
Yahoo News
International Herald Tribune
Fox news
Labels: business as usual
posted by Five Before Midnight | 3:40 PM
2 Comments:
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.
Dear "Vanilla Gorilla" and other aliases(at Pacbell Net Rosemead/Whittier/Monteray Park and those are just for starters):
I expected to hear from you. After all, you were just about to post on this topic, different thread the other day. Oh, and you also went searching for your comment just before 9 a.m. this morning. Sorry to disappoint you.
Here's some news for you. You were never any fun so I guess I have one up on you, bud.
Take your racism and your nasty attitude elsewhere. You've been crapping on my blog for quite some time now. It's time to get on with your life.
Oh, and why you're at it. Tell your friend, you know the one using about a half dozen Verizon accounts, that I don't want to see his garbage here either.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home