Home  » Blog

LAPPL Blog: The official blog of the Los Angeles Policy Protective League

No on 57: Stop the Early Release of Violent Criminals

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 10/14/2016 @ 01:11 PM

This November you have an opportunity to prevent another public safety disaster. You can vote NO on Proposition 57.

Proposition 57 falsely claims it will improve public safety. That’s simply untrue. Proposition 57 will allow violent convicted felons to receive parole after serving only a small portion of their sentences. And don’t be fooled, this harebrained proposition is not limited to nonviolent offenders. It will release into our neighborhoods a host of criminals convicted of violent crimes.

If you think criminals who profit from the trafficking of young girls in the sex trade are reprehensible, you must vote NO on Prop 57. Under Prop 57, human traffickers are eligible for early parole.

If you believe a thug who pounds your neighbor with a baseball bat should not be let out early to roam your neighborhood streets again, you must vote NO on Prop 57. Prop 57 makes these criminals eligible for early parole too.

If you believe that anyone who kills a pedestrian with their vehicle and runs away from the scene should serve their time, you must vote NO on Prop 57. Yes, these cowards are eligible under Prop 57 for early parole as well.

Try to hire a hit man? Get out early. Give a gun to a gang member to carry out a gang hit? Get out early. Roughing up a witness set to testify? No problem. You can get out early too.

Can Prop 57 really be this flawed? Yes. Yes, it can.

That’s why 50 District Attorneys, 28 County Sheriffs and scores of law enforcement associations and crime victims’ organizations all oppose Proposition 57. They are joined by major newspapers across the state including: The San Diego Union-Tribune, The San Jose Mercury News, The Fresno Bee, The Santa Rosa Press Democrat and The East Bay Times. You can see a full list of those opposing Proposition 57 here.

California residents are currently suffering through the impacts of the last two rounds of criminal justice experimentation. Proposition 47 and AB 109 have put more criminals on our streets and have downgraded so many crimes from felonies to misdemeanors that it has become open season on our homes, vehicles and our local businesses. Our criminal justice system has become a revolving door for criminals and made our neighborhoods less safe.

Combine the passage of Proposition 57 with the fact that police staffing in Los Angeles is at dangerously low levels, and you have a recipe for disaster: more dangerous criminals in our neighborhoods with fewer police officers to protect our residents.

Haven’t we learned our lesson when it comes to half-baked ideas from pandering politicians? Vote NO on Proposition 57.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Police Commission tells officers to run away, or else

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 09/21/2016 @ 04:44 PM

Run away. If a police officer is confronted by a suspect with a weapon, those entrusted to set policies for the Police Department believe officers should run away. That’s the recent finding from the Los Angeles Police Commission which has turned Monday morning quarterbacking into a weekly agenda item at the three-ring circus they preside over every Tuesday morning.

In the Commission’s most recent decision on an officer-involved shooting, in which a suspect charged at two officers swinging an 8 to 9-inch knife, they faulted the officer for not “redeploying” to “create distance.” In plain English: the officer didn’t run away.

The key facts in this case are not in dispute. A female suspect, armed with an 8 to 9-inch knife, charged at officers, repeatedly ignored commands to stop, and was recorded yelling “shoot me” as she swung her knife from side to side.

The armed suspect quickly closed the gap between her knife and the police officers from 70 feet to less than 5 feet in under 10 seconds. That is when the first officer discharged his service weapon. The second officer involved had only three seconds to respond to the imminent threat. Even the Commission stated that “It was reasonable for Officer C to believe, in the moment when the use of force occurred, that the subject would imminently assault him with the knife.”

So where’s the beef?

The officers didn’t run away. The Commission, armed with video and their own political agenda broke down the footage frame by frame to determine that in the course of seconds, the first officer whose “position initially provided Officer C with a position of tactical advantage” lost the advantage as the suspect charged him. They wrote, “this advantage rapidly diminished as the Subject continued her advance, leaving him with neither distance nor effective cover as the Subject approached the space between two parked vehicles by which Officer C was located.”

Suspect charging from the front. Vehicles on either side. Where do you “redeploy?” Run backwards. This is absurd and it’s dangerous. What happens if the officer loses his footing with a charging suspect? What happens if the suspect runs into a nearby home or store and confronts its occupants with her weapon? What if the suspect also had a concealed gun? What is created when an officer turns tail and runs away is a large target. It’s called a back. The officer would put their lives in further jeopardy by running away if the suspect had a gun. At this close range, running away would create a self-caused danger to the officers and the public.

Chief Beck, who has absolutely no problem finding fault with officers, agreed with these officers’ actions. The Commission, with a grand total of zero years of experience in law enforcement, overruled the Chief’s decision. The Commissioners created an alternative set of facts that acknowledged that the officer was right to believe his life was in jeopardy but found fault with the officer shooting the knife-wielding suspect because the officer should have run away. Pathetic.

It sure must be easy to talk about “redeploying” an officer’s position while sipping a Diet Coke or bottled water while sitting in a police-guarded, air-conditioned room, in a cushy office chair, watching the events unfold in slow motion on a big-screen TV.

But that’s not reality. The Commission is becoming nothing more than a politically motivated rubber stamp for the warped worldview of a handful of activists that they pander to. In this instance, only Commissioner Steve Soboroff was willing to let facts and reason prevail.

The message the Los Angeles Police Commission is sending to officers confronted with a violent and dangerous suspect is clear: You can save your life or save your job, but you cannot do both. You choose.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

LAPPL Board of Directors meet with L.A. Mayoral Candidate Mitchell Schwartz

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 08/15/2016 @ 04:44 PM

LAPPL Directors and Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Mitchell Schwartz (center)

LAPPL Directors and Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Mitchell Schwartz (center)

Today, the Los Angeles Police Protective League Board of Directors met with Mayoral Candidate Mitchell Schwartz to listen to his ideas about reducing crime, increasing the number of police officers patrolling our streets and improving our city.

The League Directors also shared with Mitchell examples of the chronic understaffing faced by our patrol divisions. They strongly urged him to support the utilization of overtime to put in place a baseline patrol staffing model to help keep our city safe. Other topics of discussion included fixing our broken workers’ compensation system, making sure civilians are performing civilian work so that police officers can perform police duties, and revamping the unfair Board of Rights disciplinary structure.

The Board of Directors appreciated Mitchell’s candor and openness, as well as many of his stances on the issues that Los Angeles faces. To learn more about Mitchell, please click here.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Boyle Heights Shooting

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 08/12/2016 @ 06:25 PM

There’s no question about it. The death of a 14-year-old, for any reason, is a true tragedy on so many levels. But the early indications in this case are that the 14-year-old fired a handgun at LAPD officers and our officers must always put their safety and the safety of the public we serve first.

Nothing can be done to bring back Jesse Romero to his family, but there is much to be learned from this tragic event. The sad reality is that it makes no difference the age, race or gender of who is firing a hand gun. The bullets kill just the same. No officer wants to use his or her firearm to take a life. However, LAPD officers this week found themselves in an impossible situation: patrolling known gang territory and being fired upon. They had no choice but protect themselves and the public from harm.

The incident forces us to ask ourselves, why would a 14-year-old feel the need to carry a gun? Why would he run when approached by police officers? Why would he shoot at police officers, as at least one witness alleges he did? What was happening in this young man’s life that led him to make a series of horrible decisions that ultimately led to a horrible outcome for all involved?

As is the case with any use of force, an exhaustive investigation will be conducted, and we encourage everyone to remain patient while the investigation is being completed. Rumors, innuendo and assumptions will not lead to truth or justice. These rumors just fuel the fires that cloud objective facts in these cases.

The men and women of the LAPD who risk their lives to protect the people of Los Angeles are all impacted by this case. We all fear that one day, we will be on the receiving end of bullets from a suspect’s gun. We all dread any day where we are forced to use force to protect ourselves, our partners or the public.

Make no mistake, like many officers involved in similar situations, every day will be an intense struggle to recover from the trauma they experienced this week. A part of them will never, ever be the same.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Will Mayor Garcetti say NO to corporate welfare and put safety first?

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 08/04/2016 @ 03:23 PM

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Police Protective League demanded that the multibillionaire owner of the Los Angeles Rams pay his bills for police services in full. The LAPD estimates that the annual cost to provide police services outside of the L.A. Coliseum is $2 million. That’s chump change when it comes to the Ram’s owner.

Why did the LAPPL speak out? Because our City is in the midst of a violent crime surge coupled with a crisis in our neighborhood patrol staffing levels. Because we do not have the resources, financially or personnel-wise, to provide over 200 officers every game day. We came forward because the discussions between one of the world’s richest men and the City of Los Angeles are taking place behind closed doors.

We publicly asked the Mayor to protect police services and to say no to freebies for a billionaire. His response left us scratching our heads. He said, “We will do everything necessary to make sure that all public resources are used as thoughtfully and as efficiently as possible.” Huh? That’s an excellent display of political doublespeak.

The Rams released a statement about how there are “meetings” set up over the next couple of weeks to discuss this issue with the LAPD. Those “meetings” have been going on for months and the Rams have refused to commit to paying the full cost for police services. The season is upon us and there’s no deal. A member of the media asked us yesterday, “Why is this just coming out now?” “Why didn’t the City figure this out before the Rams came back to town?” Those are good questions that only our Mayor and Police Chief can answer.

We know the command staff members who have to implement the Rams plan are sweating bullets. They’re trying to ensure a minimal amount of on-duty officers are yanked from patrol beats to assist the Rams. But the LAPD media machine is stating there will be no impacts to neighborhood safety. That just isn’t true. What they’re hiding from the public is that they’re yanking officers, who have active detective caseloads, off of their cases to provide security for an NFL team that will be leaving our city in three years. So which rape case, which juvenile abuse case and which home burglary case that you’re pulling detectives from has no impact on neighborhood safety? It’s appalling how, given the opportunity, the brass just can’t level with the public.

Make no mistake, we’re excited the Rams are back in the L.A. area. However, we cannot let our excitement cloud the issue of why we are here: to protect the people of L.A. Violent crime in Los Angeles since 2014 is up over 42 percent. There really is only one person who can ensure that the man considered one of the most powerful men in sports, who owns an NFL team, an NBA team, an NHL team, an MLS team and an English professional soccer club, pays his bills. That’s Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Earlier this year, we pleaded with the Mayor for more funds to increase neighborhood police patrols, but we were told the City couldn’t afford it. That’s a basic service. So, we expect him to tell the person aiming to capitalize on the nation’s second largest media market that we just can’t afford to give you a free lunch today. Sorry.

We’re counting on the Mayor to put our residents’ interests above the interests of the super wealthy and super powerful. We put sunlight on this issue because we believe that the public deserves transparency in this matter. If the Mayor steps up and puts safety first, he deserves praise. If he decides that L.A. is in the business of corporate welfare, well, he can explain that decision to residents, taxpayers and voters.

Mayor Garcetti, it’s fourth down and we’re behind in the last quarter. Will you lead the come-from-behind win? Or will you take a knee and hand the game to the billionaire?

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Governor digs California deeper into public safety crisis

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 06/22/2016 @ 11:11 AM

The adage goes, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” It’s wise advice that our governor should heed. This November, Governor Jerry Brown is asking California voters to dig ourselves deeper and deeper into a public safety crisis.

A pair of laws passed by the California Legislature and California voters has wreaked havoc on public safety in communities across the state. AB 109, signed into law by Governor Brown in 2011, pushed more inmates from our state prison system into our county jails, creating pressure for overcrowding in those facilities and earlier releases. Proposition 47, passed by California voters in 2012, released more prison inmates into our neighborhoods and reduced multiple felony crimes to misdemeanors.

The impact? We have more felons on our streets who now know they have almost free rein when it comes to committing crimes. The proof is in the numbers. Violent crime in Los Angeles is up 47.7 percent since 2014. Property crime is up 17.5 percent, auto theft is up 37.8 percent, burglary theft from vehicles are up 27.5 percent over that same time period. Are the “reform” laws promulgated by Governor Brown solely to blame for these devastating impacts on our neighborhoods? No. But ask any cop on patrol or your neighbor who has had their car broken into and they’ll tell you from personal experience that the new laws are a major contributor to the problem.

The public safety hole we find ourselves in is a mile deep and Governor Brown wants to keep digging. The governor has qualified an initiative for the November ballot that will make state prisoners eligible for parole after only serving a small portion of their sentences. This will be true even if the prisoner was convicted for crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, human trafficking and manslaughter as reported by Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee. It’s absurd.

How high does crime have to rise for politicians to get the message that enough is enough?

Of course, if we were to dump more criminals on our streets, there will be funds to help cities mitigate the damages, right? Of course not. There is no funding attached to increase our police forces in California to ensure the thousands and thousands of convicted criminals free to roam our streets do not reoffend. So police departments like LAPD and Los Angeles residents are stranded alone to figure out how to compassionately deal with a homeless crisis, rising gang activity, and a surge of street criminals who know they won’t be arrested as long as they only rip you off for less than a $1,000.

You may choose to believe that the governor had the best of intentions when signing AB 109 and pushing for Proposition 47. The experiment is over and it failed our communities miserably. He knows exactly what will happen if he cons voters into supporting his latest attack on our safety.

Governor Brown, put down the shovel. California’s hole is deep enough.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Join the effort to reform California’s death penalty

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 04/21/2016 @ 03:03 PM

Voters have the opportunity to reform California’s death penalty, but it will take your action now. A broad coalition of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, crime victim advocates and community leaders have come together to fix our broken death penalty system. An initiative titled “California Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016” is currently being circulated for the November ballot; it needs your signature, and the campaign needs your financial support.

California’s death penalty has become ineffective because of waste, delays and inefficiencies. Fixing it will save taxpayers millions of dollars every year, assure due process protections for those sentenced to death, and provide justice for murder victims and their families. In California, death row inmates have murdered over 1,000 victims, including 226 children and 43 police officers; 294 victims were raped and/or tortured prior to being murdered. It’s time California reformed our death penalty process so it works.

This initiative will ensure justice for both victims and defendants by:

  • Expanding the pool of available defense attorneys.
  • Requiring that a defendant who is sentenced to death is appointed a lawyer at the time of sentence, rather than waiting for years just to get a lawyer.
  • Allowing the Department of Corrections to house condemned inmates in less costly housing with fewer special privileges.
  • Requiring that condemned inmates work and pay restitution to victims.
  • Allowing CDCR to enact an execution protocol without having to reply to every question or suggestion by any citizen who sends them a letter.
  • Giving the California Supreme Court oversight over the state agency that manages death penalty appeals.

In order to fix the death penalty, the California Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016 must first qualify for the ballot by obtaining over 365,000 valid signatures of registered voters. You can request to have a petition sent to you by clicking here. In addition to submitting enough signatures for the initiative to be placed on the ballot, a campaign must be waged to pass the initiative, and in California, that’s expensive. Please consider making a secure donation of any amount to fix our broken death penalty by clicking here.

California’s death row includes serial killers, cop killers, child killers, mass murderers, and hate crime killers. The death penalty system is broken, but it can and should be fixed. Join your fellow law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and families of crime victims to bring justice to convicted killers. To get more information on how you can fix California’s death penalty, please visit www.deathpenaltyreform.com.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Commissioner Johnson should walk a mile in a cop’s shoes

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 04/14/2016 @ 04:14 PM

Apparently, Police Commission President Matt Johnson is unfamiliar with the adage “Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.” Mr. Johnson’s misguided proposal to change the Los Angeles Police Department’s Use of Force Policy was created in a vacuum. As far as we know, he never sought input from the men and women who patrol our streets, the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), officers who have discharged their weapons, or experts with experience in tactical law enforcement situations.

Four months into his term on the Commission, with no law enforcement training background whatsoever, Mr. Johnson formulated his proposal behind closed doors and announced it with a media splash under the guise of attempting to de-escalate potential use of force incidents. That’s a worthy goal, but unfortunately, by creating this policy change in secret, Mr. Johnson shut out any voices advocating for officer safety. He also failed to evaluate and include real-life quantifiable facts and data to ensure that his policy change protects the lives of police officers and innocent citizens, whose lives also matter.

Mr. Johnson and other ill-informed individuals and organizations actually believe that police officers who find themselves in dangerous situations where they must deploy their weapon have nothing but time on their hands. This belief is not based on facts, data, or science. To introduce an additional mental checklist of items that an officer must run through, while making split-second decisions and navigating volatile and violent confrontations, will result in dead officers. Period.

Mr. Johnson and his Inspector General, Alexander Bustamante, were not interested in learning of the real-world experiences LAPD officers confront each day. They were intent on chasing headlines instead of honestly evaluating the effectiveness of the current policy. They provided zero information as to why the current policy, a policy that took four years of in-depth scrutiny and analysis to develop, should be changed. The current policy was developed by former Chief William Bratton and was based on national best practices, and it is working. If Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bustamante would have utilized “best practices” on how best to solve a problem, they would have come to the same conclusion the LAPPL has come to, that the current use of force policy is not in need of change.

Unfortunately, the process utilized to rush through changes to the current policy did not follow a systematic “best practice” approach to problem solving that calls for:

  1. Decision-making based on data, rather than hunches.
  2. Determining root causes of problems, rather than reacting to superficial symptoms.
  3. Devising permanent solutions, rather than relying on quick fixes.

If Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bustamante were actually interested in reducing use of force incidents in a comprehensive manner, they would begin by evaluating the currently available data, instead of following hunches. Recently, the LAPD released a comprehensive report on the use of force among LAPD officers. The report confirms that the use of force by officers is extremely rare, and when officers were compelled to use force, they have increasingly used the “less lethal” options available to them.

In 2015, the LAPD had over 1.5 million contacts with the public. Of those contacts, only 0.13 percent resulted in the use of force. From 2014–2015, Taser use by officers increased by 24 percent, and the deployment of beanbag projectiles increased by 31 percent. The report compares 2011–2014 and concludes that baton strikes decreased 21 percent and the use of hand/foot strikes by officers declined by 35 percent.

Those reductions are a result of the current policy, which places an emphasis on training and improving the critical thinking skills of officers—as opposed to the checklist policing style advocated for by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bustamante. The results of this comprehensive study should be celebrated, not ignored. There’s another set of numbers, however, that Mr. Johnson’s Police Commission are just not dealing with.

Of the 38 officer-involved shootings in 2015, 12 (31.5 percent) were “suicide by cop.” The number of those involving mentally ill suspects tripled, increasing from five in 2014, to 15 in 2015. And as it relates to officer safety, the number of officers injured last year during officer-involved shootings nearly tripled.

What this data really shows is that police officers are increasingly at risk. Yet despite that risk, officers are more and more choosing to deploy Tasers, beanbags and other less lethal options to de-escalate use of force situations.

In police work, seconds matter. The current proposal by the Police Commission fails to rely upon data to quantify just how much time an officer has when the decision to use lethal force is made. We see no reliance upon academic research, studies or live simulations to justify a change to the current policy, a policy that is working.

In fact, when recently invited by the LAPPL to participate in the LAPD’s Force Option Simulator training, Commission president, and entertainment lawyer, Mr. Johnson declined, stating that it would do him about as much good as it would LAPPL members to learn how to write contracts for Oprah Winfrey. Mr. Johnson not only refuses to walk a mile in our members’ shoes to better understand the split-second decisions he now wants to prolong; he refuses to even have his foot sized to try on the shoes.

If he were to find it within himself to learn more about the real-life dangers of policing, and how action versus reaction interacts with that danger, we believe a more thoughtful approach to de-escalating use of force incidents would emerge. This letter renews our invitation to participate in LAPD’s Force Option Simulator training.

To better understand the data supporting the danger of police work, we recommend the Police Commission read the abstract of a study published in 2011 titled “Reasonableness and Reaction Time,” which states:

“When the police use deadly force, their actions are judged by the reasonableness standard. This paper seeks to inform the reasonableness standard by examining the ability of police officers to respond to armed suspects. The results of a reaction time experiment are presented. In this experiment, police officers encountered a suspect armed with a gun, pointing down and not at the police officer. The police officer had his gun aimed at the suspect and ordered the suspect to drop the gun. The suspect then either surrendered or attempted to shoot the officer. The speed with which the officer fired if the suspect chose to shoot was assessed. Results suggest that the officers were generally not able to fire before the suspect (emphasis added). Implications for the reasonableness standard and policy are discussed.”

The study utilized a 10-by-10-foot taped square where an armed suspect was placed with either a handgun pointed down at their side or pointed at their head (in a manner threatening suicide). An officer was also placed in the taped square, had their handgun pointed at the suspect and gave verbal commands to the suspect to drop their weapon.

Despite the fact that the officer’s weapon was pointed at the suspect, the study’s abstract states: “Results suggest that the officers were generally not able to fire before the suspect. The average time it took for the suspect to fire at the officer was .38 seconds.” Remember that in this study the officer had their weapon pointed at the suspect and the suspect had their weapon pointed down at their side or at their head threatening suicide. How is it possible that “officers were generally not able to fire before the suspect?”

Page 13 of the “Reasonableness and Reaction Time” study reveals the reason why:

“In tactical policing circles, this is referred to as the OODA loop (Howe, 2005). OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. In the meantime, the suspect has already assessed the situation, decided on a course of action, and must only complete the act of firing. In OODA loop terminology, the officer must negotiate the entire loop more quickly than the suspect executes the action portion of the loop if the officer is to win the encounter. This is why it is commonly argued that ‘action is always faster than reaction’ (Honig and Lewinsky, 2008, p. 141).”

Mr. Johnson’s proposal to change the use of force policy effectively establishes additional steps into the current OODA process that officers must manage to render a decision on whether or not to use force. Under Mr. Johnson’s unscientific hunch approach, OODA would become OOCSGDA; Observe, Orient, Checklist, Second Guess, Decide and Act.

As the “Reasonableness and Reaction Time” study demonstrates, a suspect, armed or not, intent on doing harm has already concluded the three steps of the OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide) prior to acting. An officer must navigate those three steps and the additional step of Act after the suspect has decided to act, and that places the officer at a distinct disadvantage. Add the extra steps Mr. Johnson proposes, and officers are further disadvantaged.

An additional contributing factor to use of force incidents that must be addressed is the level of fatigue officers face when a police department is understaffed. The LAPD is in the midst of a staffing crisis. This equates to officers running from call to call to call during their shift and having their time off requests denied because of understaffing.

Studies have shown that tired officers have a higher likelihood of making a mistake, of having a negative experience with the public and having their decisions impaired due to fatigue. Fatigue could lead to additional use of force instances; thus, reducing fatigue and ensuring police officers are provided a substantial health and wellness program could reduce use of force incidents.

The Police Commission has not addressed the LAPD’s understaffing crisis, and thus is not addressing one of the potential root causes contributing to the very issue they are attempting to address. Avoiding a potential root cause of an issue one is attempting to ameliorate is contrary to problem-solving best practices.

The Department is unable on a daily basis to meet the minimum number of “Basic Cars” that should be deployed in our neighborhoods to keep our community safe. As crime continues to skyrocket, the Department is in need of a Community Policing Reset. Proposition 47 has turned many violent habitual offenders back onto our streets. The LAPD has become the designated first responder to calls from residents who are struggling to cope with L.A.’s severe homelessness crisis and with the severely mentally ill who are going untreated and unassisted.

Mr. Johnson’s proposed solution does nothing to provide comprehensive mental health and crisis intervention training to bolster officers’ skill sets when it comes to managing suspects or other individuals with mental health issues.

There’s no proposal by Mr. Johnson to improve officer safety. No proposal to address the staffing crisis. No plan to help the LAPD handle the deluge of felons dumped onto our streets. Zero. There is, however, a whole lot of rhetoric and political window dressing. While that might be good for someone’s political career, it wreaks havoc on public safety.

Mr. Johnson comes from the entertainment world, where make believe and fiction are his industry’s cornerstones. We’re cops, we live in the real world where life and death decisions are made in split seconds. We hope that he can find the time to walk a mile in our shoes before completing his audition for the role of police tactician where his decisions have real-life implications on whether or not we make it home at our EOW.

We invite you to share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

Permalink | Comments ()

Currently reading page 1 of 43.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next Page