Home  » Blog

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

No outrage against attempted murder of police officers

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 08/19/2014 @ 03:21 PM

KTLA Los Angeles / August 18, 2014

(KTLA Los Angeles / August 18, 2014)

Over the last 72 hours, there have been a number of attempted murders of police officers in Los Angeles County, yet there has been no community or media outrage.

Two prime examples include an LAPD SWAT officer who was severely injured during a shootout with a suspected gunman following a pursuit in South Los Angeles. In another case, a sheriff’s deputy is facing a long recovery after undergoing surgery for life-changing injuries he suffered in an unprovoked attempted murder by an “unarmed” man already on probation for assaulting a peace officer. Witnesses said the deputy was escorting a male suspect in a mall when the suspect unexpectedly turned on the deputy and hit him several times, knocking the deputy to the ground, and continuing his assault.

Crickets chirp as we wait for the LA Times Editorial Board to chime in with some suggestions on police tactics following these incidents.

City residents, law enforcement, community members and editorial writers should be alarmed when those whose job it is to fight crime on a daily basis are being targeted for murder. Why do otherwise reasoned individuals—despite evidence before them to the contrary—become reflexively critical of police? Why do these individuals jump to the twisted conclusion that police officers’ lives are any less endangered when encountering “unarmed” suspects than when they’re staring down the barrel of a gun? Why do these same individuals assume all officer-involved shootings—while always tragic—are always “bad” shootings? These individuals are cherry-picking the facts and doing a disservice to the communities they serve.

The disconnect between reality and the world in which newspaper editorial boards live in cannot not be more starkly contrasted than the LA Times editorial which pontificated about the Ezell Ford shooting with the following: “It is hard to believe that police cannot refine their encounters with unarmed citizens to avoid the use of deadly force.” In other words, according to the Times, “unarmed” residents pose no threat to officers.

The reality is that when somebody attacks a police officer, they should expect the reaction to their attack will be swift, sure and met with enough force to end the assault. As LAPPL President Tyler Izen told the Times, “While waiting for the facts to be determined, I feel the need to restate the obvious. When a person attempts to take an officer’s gun from them, no matter their physical or mental condition, we should expect an officer to respond accordingly to save their life—and that likely includes the use of deadly force.”

We also note with dismay that while compelled to devote numerous pages of coverage to the unfolding situation in Ferguson, Missouri, the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board cannot be stirred to write even a murmur of protest over the violence directed against police officers there. Apparently, throwing Molotov cocktail bottles, rocks, and other debris at police officers is just not worthy of their commentary. Yet, you can be sure that if a police officer were the perpetrator of equivalent violence, entire forests would be decimated to print the hand-wringing editorials from the Los Angeles Times.

If a suspect takes or attempts to take an officer’s gun by force, he has sent a clear message that he intends to murder that officer and possibly others, and must be stopped for the safety of all. Whether that aggressive suspect is under the influence of a controlled substance, alcohol, or has a mental illness, the target of his attack will be in immediate danger nonetheless. When anyone grabs for the officer’s gun, they become an armed suspect, and in most cases, predetermined the tragic outcome of events.

Public safety requires a strong two-way partnership. We need to make it clear that Los Angeles is a city in which violence against the community or its police officers is never tolerated. The dedicated men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department, who serve to protect our communities, deserve all the tools and support the community can possibly provide. The LAPPL asks the public and our community leaders to continue to support our officers and make sure that criminals do not deter them from making Los Angeles the safest big city in America.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

Misuse of statistics behind erroneous LA police officer salary claims

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 08/07/2014 @ 04:44 PM

Ed Ring can’t be taken seriously, given the bile he regularly spews out, such as public employee unions “are the primary force behind the erosion of our freedoms and the ebb of our prosperity. They must be eliminated” and “A California renaissance requires only one thing-the abolition of public sector unions.”

However, since Ring’s views that are churned out at either his “UnionWatch” or “California Policy Center” websites are sometimes picked up other sites, some obvious misstatements beg to be rebutted.

A case in point: Ring’s latest attempt to opine on pay raises for Los Angeles police officers is the latest demonstration of both his lack of understanding of pension issues and his continual need to invent numbers to fit his preordained conclusions. In this piece, Ring attempted to determine “how much do Los Angeles police officers make?” Well, in “Ring math,” what an officer “makes” includes pay, cost of benefits, and the cost of City contribution to the Police and Fire pension system for pensions and retiree healthcare.

According to Ring, the average officer makes $110,285. To that number, he adds the City contribution last year for pension and retiree health of 49.51 percent. That, exclaimed Ring, means the “average total compensation for LAPD officers is actually $157,151.” Uh, no!

The annual cost of City contributions for employee pensions and retiree healthcare is known as the “normal cost.” For pensions, it is 19.43 percent, and 4.06 percent for the retiree health subsidy. That’s about 23.49 of salary—a far cry from the figure Ring touts.

The other part of the City contribution he cites pays for the unfunded liability, which covers the past investment experience of the plan and fluctuates depending on past performance. For example, prior to the 2008 financial crisis, the unfunded liability was negligible, and the City contribution rate was essentially simply the “normal cost.” Further, unfunded liabilities include pension liabilities of already retired and deferred plan members, not just active officers. The bottom line is that claiming the unfunded liability cost as part of an officer’s compensation is grossly and deliberately misleading—but that should not surprise us when it comes to Ring’s opinion pieces.

Wrong on so many issues, Ring can’t separate himself from an issue he has unsuccessfully pushed for years. Since the 2008 crisis, he and his fellow public pension haters have bashed the assumed return rate assumptions of public pension plans as being too high. Turns out the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension system return rate was 17.3 percent for 2013-2014, and other public pension funds reported similar double-digit returns and five-year returns exceeding their assumed rates. This isn’t happy news for Ring. But rather than acknowledging these facts, in the same screed in which he inflates officers compensation, Ring deflates assumed return rate assumptions in a desperate attempt to enlarge the unfunded liability of pension funds.

More dissection of Ring’s handiwork isn’t really necessary because as the famous saying goes, Ring uses statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost; for support, not illumination. A bitter worldview to be sure, just not one grounded in reality or facts.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

The value of LAPD and Public Safety

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 07/24/2014 @ 12:56 PM

The purpose of a City is to provide a variety of services to its residents, chief among them public safety. Services are provided by people, which is why the majority of costs in every city budget are the costs of employees. It is always interesting to hear critics of public employees decry the cost of their pay and benefits, while simultaneously assuming that slashing pay and benefits will result in more City services — as if quality employees will flock to work for an employer who offers compensation lower than what they could earn elsewhere.

When City revenues fall, employees pay the brunt of the subsequent restructuring, either in job losses or cuts and freezes in salaries and benefits. The officers of the LAPD are a prime example. While residents may have received less in City services, LAPD officers and their families were directly and negatively impacted. The dedication and willingness to tackle the problem at personal expense helped the City address its budget challenges and maintain core services. Those concessions included:

  • Tier 6 pension – $30 million annual savings
  • Compensated time off for overtime – $80 million annual savings
  • 20 percent pay cut for new hires – $5 million annual savings
  • 2 percent increase in medical contributions – $12 million annual savings

There is a true “high cost to protect and serve in L.A.,” just not a cost that critics of LAPD pay and benefits like to acknowledge. It’s the cost of not using increased City revenue to repair the cuts outlined above that LAPD officers took over the last several years. While City revenues have increased, City leaders “hope” that their refusal to engage in meaningful efforts to use increased revenues to reverse these cuts will not affect public safety. Unfortunately for them, “hope” is not a plan.

The LAPD has reached an inflection point; the rank and file’s recent vote to reject the City contract is firm evidence that morale is down. There is a deep seeded frustration and anger among the rank and file due to their low pay, working conditions, a disciplinary system that is viewed as biased and unfair and their perception that management is unreceptive to their concerns. That frustration has translated to the fact that officers are no longer willing to continue their financial givebacks. Nor are these officers without alternatives; experienced and well-trained officers are desired by police and sheriff departments throughout Southern California and statewide. LAPD does not have a magical attraction that prevents officers, who have fallen well behind their peers, from leaving for higher salaries in other agencies.

The loss to the City if officers leave in large numbers will be profoundly felt and seen in a variety of ways. To begin with, the City will incur enormous financial costs from the estimated $150,000 the City pays to recruit and train every new police officer.

Furthermore, public safety is likely to suffer — the City of San Jose is a prime example. There, the police force of 1,400 has plummeted to 900 as salary cuts, an illegal and flawed ballot initiative, and repeated denigration of police officers by the Mayor and other city leaders spurred officers to leave in droves. In lockstep with the steadily shrinking police force, crime in San Jose has increased at a rate higher than state and national averages. In Los Angeles, the City has been unable to recruit enough people to fill authorized Academy classes and recent graduates are leaving to work for other agencies upon completing the Academy. This pay differential is why 130 LAPD officers left the Department last year alone for other police departments. While the City has now decided to fix the starting salary regardless of the contract, what about the tenured officers who have worked for years and sacrificed to keep Los Angeles safe?

One myth being spread is that “For every dollar paid in salary to police officers, the city must come up with 50 cents more for retirement costs.” That statement is simply NOT factually correct, and reflects a lack of understanding of pension financing. A modest cost of living adjustment to all officers will NOT increase the City’s contribution as a percent of pay, as the City’s contribution next year already has imbedded in it a salary increase for all officers. According to reports publically available at the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension (LAFPP) website, the percentage the City will pay, if it pays that amount, is already calculated cost and will not increase the City’s payment by 50 percent every year as some have claimed. A modest cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for officers means that the City would only pay more in dollars, but the percentage will not increase.

The City’s refusal to meaningfully address the disparity in officer pay compared to agencies in other large cities, the Department’s arbitrary and unfair disciplinary system, and the backhanded slaps at officers by City leaders is creating a toxic stew that will have long-lasting and impactful results for the City’s residents. Public safety that is delivered by highly trained, quality individuals cannot come on the cheap, even if City leaders “hope” it can.

Let’s learn from the examples in San Jose. City leaders need to address the real issues of pay and unfair and arbitrary disciplinary practices in a serious and meaningful way, and they need to do it now. They need to put public safety first.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

Video as “evidence”—A cautionary tale

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 06/25/2014 @ 03:21 PM

When viewed by itself and without any context, this video looked troubling. It showed three Los Angeles Police Department officers wrestling with a young skateboarder while a fourth officer appeared to punch him in the face.

An easy case of police brutality, right?


A Los Angeles federal jury unanimously rejected the civil rights lawsuit that Ronald Weekley Jr., a 20-year-old Venice man, filed in connection with his August 2012 police encounter. Weekley was initially stopped for skateboarding on the wrong side of a Venice street.

Public reaction to the cell phone video was predictable: How could the LAPD do this? How could officers beat a defenseless young man for no obvious reason?

As we said in August 2012 when the video surfaced, “While Mr. Weekley claims excessive use of force, it is important to remember that partially recorded police action can easily misrepresent what actually occurred. That is why it is important to know all the facts in this case and not rush to judgment. It is also important for everyone to understand that it is required by law to follow an officer’s lawful commands. We already know that the partial videotape does not tell the whole story. If, as appears in this case, the recording begins toward the end of the incident, then crucial context which explains the necessity of the use of force is not captured.”

The members of the jury wisely saw the bigger picture. After examining all of the facts, and not simply focusing on the most sensational piece of “evidence,” the jury rejected the plaintiff’s claim that police used excessive force against him because of his race. The jury concluded the officers did nothing wrong and the LAPD was not liable.

While we are grateful for the jury’s decision, this case was a cautionary tale about the importance in refraining from jumping to conclusions based on snippets of evidence. While outwardly compelling, a video does not depict what occurred before and after an incident. A video simply depicts a few moments in time; it does not provide context and may not reveal the subtleties behind an encounter, what led up to it, and the totality of what occurred during it.

In this instance, the video did not show that the skateboarder tried to flee from police, requiring officers to use force to handcuff and subdue him.

Police work is not just dangerous, it’s heavily nuanced. In this case, “excessive force” turned out to be a justified and logical response by highly trained professionals to a specific set of rapidly evolving circumstances.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

Supreme Court decision allows release of police officers’ names after shootings

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 06/04/2014 @ 12:34 PM

As police officers, we know before entering the Academy that the job comes with risks. We know it’s a dangerous job, and that every person we encounter on a routine traffic stop or a domestic violence response might have a gun that they’re prepared to use. We’re willing to accept those risks because we believe in public service and fulfilling our duties. Our calling is to help and protect people and to improve society in whatever way we can. Thus, we are disappointed in the state Supreme Court ruling that California police departments shall not have a blanket right to conceal the names of officers involved in shootings.

California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming Chin recognized the threats we face in his dissent opinion regarding the Los Angeles Times’ lawsuit seeking to force the Long Beach Police Department to release the names of officers involved in shootings. Unfortunately, the rest of the judicial bench did not agree and the court majority ruled in favor of the Times. Nevertheless, their judgment is the last word on this vital issue to the law enforcement community throughout California. In spite of the ruling, we will continue doing our part in vigilantly protecting the safety and privacy of all our police officers.

The concerns of the law enforcement community stem beyond privacy; they land primarily on the safety of our police officers. Officers identified as having shot and, in some cases, killed suspects, are in immediate danger because police shootings stoke strong emotions amongst the families of the suspects, those who’ve had a bad experience with the criminal justice system and those who instinctually equate use of force with police brutality and misconduct.

The reality of the Internet age is that with a credit card and a computer, access to an individual’s personal information is easily available. Addresses, spouse’s name, employer and children’s names are obtainable. Officers involved in shootings—and their families—are prime targets for revenge. Releasing the names of these officers creates a pathway for vengeance or anyone’s twisted concept of “justice.” To deny this safety to them is, at best, naïve.

The Times argues the public has a right to know the names of officers involved in shootings. We argue officers—and their wives, husbands and children—have a right to safety and to minimize the targets that they already are. We cannot afford to wait for a death of an officer or of an officer’s family member to spur legislation to correct the court’s decision.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

Thank you for helping us grieve

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 05/09/2014 @ 10:10 AM

The Los Angeles Police Protective League would like to thank the community for their outpouring of support as the LAPD mourns the loss of three police officers in the line of duty this year.

Last week, Officer Roberto Sanchez was killed by a hit-and-run driver. In March, Officer Nick Lee was killed when his patrol car was hit by a garbage truck and in April, LAPD Motorcycle Officer Chris Cortijo died after he was struck by an alleged DUI driver.

While LAPD officers are first responders on a daily basis to violent crimes, rape victims, victims of assaults and/or car crashes, the recent deaths of three beloved brother officers has been devastating to the men and women of the LAPD. The duties of a police officer entail confronting situations that often cause considerable emotional distress, and it’s not uncommon for post-traumatic stress disorder to manifest itself after these types of events.

In this time of grieving, it’s been comforting to see officers and the community join together to honor and memorialize those lost in the line of duty. In just days, police memorial ceremonies will take place across the country in recognition of National Police Week. Meanwhile, yesterday at the Police Administration Building, the Department honored all officers lost in the line of duty with its Annual Memorial Ceremony. And over the weekend, a contingent of LAPD personnel will be heading to Washington, D.C., to join in the various ceremonies taking place during National Police Week. These memorial ceremonies remind us about the dangers and ultimate sacrifices officers make.

While officers have united in support of one another during these trying times, we cannot say enough about the outpouring of compassion and support that rank and file officers have received from the community these past several weeks. The notes, flowers, and food brought to area police stations has touched officers deeply and has provided the Department with a great deal of comfort and solace during this difficult time.

To the countless individuals who have reached out to offer their comfort and support to us, on behalf of all LAPD officers, we want to say thank you.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

City Attorney Mike Feuer: Putting Public Safety First

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 03/20/2014 @ 03:53 PM

Los Angeles City Attorney, Mike Feuer.

Los Angeles City Attorney, Mike Feuer.

L.A.’s proactive, results-oriented city attorney walks and talks public safety first. In suing Time Warner Cable last week to collect nearly $10 million he alleged is owed to the City, Feuer noted the money is needed to fund programs that affect the lives of local taxpayers.

According to the city attorney, Time Warner is required to pay the City a franchise fee to install cable wires and boxes under city streets, on telephone poles and elsewhere in the “public-right-of-way.” Until 2009, the cable provider was also required to pay a fee toward providing public, governmental and education television programming, including allowing the public use of its studios.

Mike Feuer showed he clearly has his priorities straight when he said at a news conference on Friday:

“The money we allege in this complaint would fund 100 police officers. It would fund 50 miles of sidewalk repair. It would fund the trimming of 60,000 trees in the city. It’s real, it’s material, and it’s time the taxpayers of L.A. received an amount of money that, relative to the billions of dollars that Time Warner derives from its franchise here in Los Angeles, is very nominal for them. It’s material for us.”

Feuer has been in office for less than a year, but his public safety priorities are already benefiting the city. He is doubling the neighborhood prosecutor program and is working with the LAPD to enforce new rules passed by the voters restricting marijuana dispensaries. As a result, he has shut down over 100 illegal dispensaries.

We appreciate and salute the city attorney and his staff for watching the backs of Los Angeles residents and serving as a role model for all elected officials by putting public safety first.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

The high cost of LAPD cutbacks at LAX

By LAPPL Board of Directors on 03/18/2014 @ 12:34 PM

Public safety officials, including LAPD, LAFD and others converge in LAX during the aftermath of the November 1, 2013 shooting.

Public safety officials, including LAPD, LAFD and others converge in LAX during the aftermath of the November 1, 2013 shooting.

The following is an Op-Ed by LAPPL President Tyler Izen published in Sunday’s Los Angeles Daily News. The article, headlined “The high cost of LAPD cutbacks at LAX” notes with alarm that the LAPD deployment at LAX is at its lowest level since 2001. It calls on Mayor Garcetti to reinstate positioning LAPD officers on a voluntary, overtime basis at each TSA security checkpoint at LAX as part of corrective actions to take in response to last November’s shooting at LAX, as well as the increase in violent crime reported at the airport. For one of the world’s busiest airports, as well as an acknowledged top terrorist target, LAX clearly needs to have the needed sworn personnel to maintain security and keep public safety first.

With LAPD’s deployment at LAX at its lowest level since 2001, it came as no surprise when airport officials recently reported a 10 percent increase in overall crime in 2013, and a nearly 500 percent increase in violent crimes – from only three in 2012 to 14 in 2013. The violent crimes included 10 aggravated assaults, two robberies, a rape and the November 1 killing of a Transportation Security Administration officer, the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty.

As the many agencies involved in securing the world’s sixth busiest airport finish their after-action reports on the Nov. 1 shooting, they would do well to focus as much or more of their attention on preventing the next criminal act at LAX as they do on figuring out how to better respond when one occurs.

The airport police union apparently shares our concerns. The latest edition of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association’s (LAAPOA) newsletter states:

Increased crime rate figures at LAX released this week underscore what LAAPOA has been pointing out in the media and will be publicly focusing on this year: Airport officials need to look beyond physical airport improvements and focus on investing in airport security, not only by replacing airport officers lost to attrition, but increasing the ranks.

After the El Al ticket counter shooting on July 4, 2002, then-Mayor James Hahn moved quickly to place LAPD officers at each TSA checkpoint inside LAX’s nine passenger terminals. His smart idea was to free LAX airport police to provide high-visibility patrols of the airport from its perimeter to the terminal interiors.

With that bold step, Mayor Hahn hardened the target and made LAX a model for airport security nationwide. He and his successor, Antonio Villaraigosa, believed it was essential that an armed police officer stood between the non-sterile airport and the sterile area just beyond each TSA checkpoint. Without that officer in place at the checkpoint on November 1, 2013, Paul Anthony Ciancia was able to take control of Terminal 3 until officers on patrol shot him. A gunman in control of a passenger terminal is a scary proposition when you consider all the people in LAX’s crowded terminals, and that he has access to aircraft departing or arriving at the terminal.

According to data from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, LAX Airport Police ranks declined from 514 on January 1, 2010, to 495 on January 1, 2014. This reduction came as Los Angeles World Airports phased out LAPD sworn officers who were protecting the TSA checkpoints. It also ended the high visibility LAPD motorcycle patrols of the Central Terminal Area. The net effect is a reduction of approximately 80 to 100 sworn officers (LAPD and LAX Airport Police) protecting LAX in the last three years. This led to the noticeable degradation of airport security – creating an environment conducive to a terrorist attack and the sudden rise in airport crime.

The specter of terrorism is still with us, but it now lurks in the back of our minds rather than in the foreground as it once did. It is impossible to know with precision what will be next in crime trends and safety risk, but terrorism will be a threat for years to come.

Since 9/11, there have been 41 domestic terrorist plots, including the arrest in 2012 of four Southern Californians heading to Afghanistan. While we cannot predict where terrorists will strike next, transportation systems top the list of potential targets.

Recognizing that the money to pay for public safety comes from taxpayers, our investment needs to be wise, effective and smart. The public deserves a reasonable return on investment. For that reason, Los Angeles must invest in technology and training – and our Department must collaborate and coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions to maximize the effect of public safety expenditures.

At LAX, corrective action must be taken without delay. Mayor Garcetti should direct his airport department to reinstate stationing a police officer at podiums at each of the score of TSA checkpoints around the airport as had been the case from 2002 to 2013. These fixed podiums must not be staffed at the expense of high-visibility vehicle checkpoints at the entrance (as recommended by RAND) to the airport and uniformed patrols throughout the airport. They are an important deterrent.

The mayor and City Council should direct the airport department to utilize off-duty Los Angeles Police Department officers to provide the armed officers needed at the TSA passenger screening checkpoints until airport police ranks can be expanded to provide the incremental personnel needed to maintain a hardened target.

We realize that augmenting the airport police with off-duty LAPD police costs money. Fortunately, the funds will come not from city taxpayer dollars, but rather from the airport’s self-generating budget. With billions of dollars being spent on construction projects at LAX, this is no time to pinch pennies on safety and security. All those construction projects, after all, will be of little value if people don’t feel safe going to the airport to catch a flight.

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

Permalink | Comments ()

Currently reading page 7 of 44.

Previous Page 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 44 Next Page