LAPPL Blog: The official blog of the Los Angeles Policy Protective League
An act of betrayal that stands alone
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/28/2011 @ 11:33 PM
We were as surprised and outraged as everyone else by the revelation that the Los Angeles School Police Department officer’s story of being shot by an unknown assailant may have been a hoax. Stenroos’ story triggered a sizeable manhunt and caused heartache and chaos for a great deal of people.
The LAPD’s response to the alleged shooting was swift, comprehensive and thorough. But as usual, detractors jumped on the chance to malign the force. Over 300 officers were deployed, a wide area was blocked off, and entreaties to the public were made for help in catching the suspect. This was a police department’s response to a threat whose nature, skill and motivations were still unknown. Cynical observers, however, assessed the response as unbalanced and overzealous. They attributed the show of force to the fact that it was a law enforcement officer who’d been shot, and suggested that officers would’ve been less responsive to an attack on a civilian. While we understand how it may have appeared this way, it was absolutely not the case.
Law enforcement officers are the community’s protectors; they symbolize public safety. Police officers are the ones who courageously respond when armed assailants attack, when disputes turn violent and whenever the public’s safety is threatened. In short, they are the ones who put their lives on the line to stop criminals from harming and killing. Therefore, when an assailant makes a direct and brazen attack on a member of this protective force, law enforcement must respond quickly and aggressively. Because a willingness to kill a law enforcement officer presents the ultimate danger to society. If a suspect is willing to shoot a trained, uniformed and armed police officer at point blank, what is he willing to do to the average person on the street?
The actions of Jeffrey Stenroos were a betrayal to the people of Los Angeles and the men and women of law enforcement. If proven to be a hoax, he wasted the already stretched resources of the LAPD. There is no question about the harm caused by such actions, and we are confident that the law will deal with him appropriately.
The alleged fabrications of an individual should not detract from the commitment and dedication of the men and women of the LAPD or the law enforcement community at large.
The LAPPL does not represent Los Angeles School police officers. LA School police officers are represented by the Los Angeles School Police Association. The LASPA website is www.laspoa.com.
Public safety: Government’s top obligation
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/26/2011 @ 04:00 PM
As City leaders consider the consequences of Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget, it behooves them to remember that government’s top obligation is public safety; their actions should reflect that.
Recent gains in public safety have not been accidental. The Mayor and the Chief of Police correctly credited historic lows in crime to years of dedicated work by LAPD officers and adequate public safety funding.
But some people mistakenly believe we can hold on to these gains while “policing on the cheap.” That’s why it’s important to recognize some of the early negative effects of this approach. Keeping detectives at home to preclude overtime pay is bringing down the homicide clearance rate. Leaving these crimes unsolved until the budget allows a detective to work the case is bad news for everyone except the suspect.
LA Daily News recently published one of the best commentaries on the matter. Their lead editorial rightly reasoned that public safety budgets must come first: “Angelenos can adjust in the short term to many reductions in city services,” the editorial argued. “When the economy improves, the city can recover quickly from shortened library hours, from a delay in pothole repair and from parks gone raggedy. The city can't, however, rebound easily if criminals once again feel comfortable victimizing people in Los Angeles. And the public should never again have to adjust to living in the murder capital of the U.S.”
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. City officials need to take the Daily News’ admonition to heart: Keep public safety first.
Is the City forgetting its top priority?
Not armed doesn't mean not dangerous
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/24/2011 @ 05:15 PM
Why do otherwise reasonable individuals – despite evidence to the contrary before them – become reflexively critical of police, jumping to the twisted conclusion that an officer’s life faces less danger from an unarmed suspect than when the officer is staring down the barrel of a gun? Why do these same people immediately assume all officer-involved shootings – while always tragic – are "bad" shootings? Those making snap judgments about officer-involved shootings often cherry-pick the facts and do a disservice to the communities police officers serve.
So it was in the case of Reggie Doucet Jr., an unarmed, yet violent six-foot, 190-pound bodybuilder and college defensive-back. Last week, after initially fleeing from police officers, Doucet engaged them in violent, hand-to-hand combat, attempting to disarm at least one of two officers in what the officers described as a "fight for their lives." When he grabbed for the officer's gun after fighting with them, Doucet predetermined the tragic outcome of events.
In November 2010, Riverside police officer Ryan Bonaminio was reportedly killed with his own weapon. And only a few weeks ago, Rainier, Oregon Chief of Police Ralph Painter struggled with an “unarmed” suspect who used Painter’s own gun to kill him. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, from 1999-2008, no fewer than 44 police officers were killed with their own weapons; and another two in 2009. 2010 numbers are not yet in.
The “armed” vs. “unarmed” argument is the worst kind of willful blindness. The assumption that a gun or a knife are the only ways to threaten a life is false, irresponsible and has to stop.
What do you think of the ‘armed vs. unarmed’ argument?
“Armed and dangerous” doesn’t mean “unarmed and harmless”
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/21/2011 @ 03:58 PM
Why do otherwise reasonable individuals – despite evidence to the contrary before them – become reflexively critical of police, jumping to the twisted conclusion that an officer’s life faces less danger from an unarmed suspect than when the officer is staring down the barrel of a gun? Why do these same people immediately assume all officer-involved shootings – while always tragic – are "bad" shootings? Those making snap judgments about officer-involved shootings often cherry-pick the facts and do a disservice to the communities police officers serve.
So it was in the case of Reggie Doucet Jr., an unarmed, yet violent six-foot, 190-pound bodybuilder and college defensive-back. Last week, after initially fleeing from police officers, Doucet engaged them in violent, hand-to-hand combat, attempting to disarm at least one of two officers in what the officers described as a "fight for their lives." A YouTube posting of real-time radio transmissions is chilling, but instructive. Mr. Doucet's intent was unambiguous. Indeed, when he grabbed for the officer's gun after fighting with them, he predetermined the tragic outcome of events.
In November 2010, Riverside police officer Ryan Bonaminio was reportedly killed with his own weapon. And only a few weeks ago, Rainier, Oregon Chief of Police Ralph Painter struggled with an “unarmed” suspect who used Painter’s own gun to kill him. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, from 1999-2008, no fewer than 44 police officers were killed with their own weapons; and another two in 2009. 2010 numbers are not yet in.
The “armed” vs. “unarmed” argument is the worst kind of willful blindness. The assumption that a gun or a knife are the only ways to threaten a life is false, irresponsible and has to stop.
Getting it wrong: Continued misreporting on the Rampart scandal
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/21/2011 @ 02:45 PM
NPR reporter Mandalit del Barco’s recent story, “Finance Probe Raises Ire Among Some LAPD Officers” is wrong when it comes to the Rafael Perez scandal.
Del Barco claims, “Rafael Perez was the central figure of the 1990s LAPD corruption scandal. He and more than 70 anti-gang unit officers in L.A.'s Rampart Division were found to be planting evidence, framing and even shooting alleged gang members.”
The truth is that, after all was written and investigated, the Rafael Perez scandal resulted in only four convictions – and only two of which were for corruption. And, as a result of Perez’s lies, a federal court upheld a $15 million jury award for three Los Angeles police officers who were falsely arrested and prosecuted.
The Perez case involved individual officers whose wrongdoing was mischaracterized in an effort to taint all LAPD officers. We abhor officer corruption even more than people claiming the moral high ground do, because every officer ends up paying the price for those who failed to uphold their sworn oaths.
Continued misreporting of the Rampart events is unfair to the falsely accused officers, and especially to those still on the job protecting the public. When news stories on widely reported incidents get it wrong, we are compelled to point out what really happened.
The use of deadly force
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/20/2011 @ 11:40 PM
In the wake of the Reginald Doucet Jr. shooting, some community members have asked how it is legal for a police officer to use deadly force against an unarmed man.
Police officers have a difficult job that becomes even harder when a suspect resists arrest and puts up a fight. In this case, Mr. Doucet was trying to disarm the officer; therefore, the officer did not have to delay deadly force until the suspect had the officer’s gun firmly in hand.
Officers may use force to overcome resistance, effect an arrest or prevent a suspect’s escape. Officers can use deadly force to protect their lives and when facing an individual who is using force that can cause serious bodily injury, including loss of consciousness and broken bones.
When an officer feels his life or the life of another person is in imminent danger or under threat of serious injury, the officer may use the force necessary to stop that assault. Under California law (Penal Code section 196), peace officers may use deadly force in the course of their duties under circumstances not available to members of the general public. Police officers are mindful, however, that certain limits on the use of deadly force apply to peace officers. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Scott v. Henrich (9th Cir. 1994) 39 F.3d 912, delineated the circumstances under which deadly force may be used:
…police may use only such force as is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. An officer's use of deadly force is reasonable only if “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” All determinations of unreasonable force “must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."
But irrespective of laws that apply to deadly force by police officers performing their duties, the law of self-defense is available to any person. Homicide is justifiable in accordance with California Penal Code 197 “when resisting any attempt by a person to commit great bodily injury on or kill any person.”
What has been lost in these groups’ questions and allegations is the basic fact that every person dictates the degree of force an officer uses. If officers are in a fight to protect their gun or avoid losing consciousness, they have no other option. We, as a society, must support them.
If a suspect takes or attempts to take an officer's gun, he has sent a clear message that he intends to murder that officer and possibly others, and must be stopped for the safety of everyone. Whether the aggressive suspect is under the influence of a controlled substance, alcohol, or has a mental illness; if successful, the target of the suspect’s attack will be dead nonetheless.
The loss of Bill Eaton
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/17/2011 @ 12:13 AM
It's with heavy hearts that we grieve the loss of Captain Bill Eaton, who recently passed away after a grueling battle with cancer.
Over his near 22-year career in LAPD, Captain Eaton was respected for his talents, ethics and leadership. He was a mentor and friend to many within the Department and the community. With the many successes over his career, he was never more proud than he was as a father to his two boys.
Bill never let his rank affect him as a person. Whether he was a P III in Newton or the Captain III in Van Nuys, he treated people with respect and dignity and kept a fair and open mind. Never was he too proud to call and seek advice before making decisions, because while he was firm when he needed to be, he never acted with an intent to maliciously slight or disparage anyone.
The Board of Directors, attorneys and staff of the League extend our condolences, thoughts and prayers to his children, family, loved ones and friends, all who will clearly mourn a substantial loss in the passing of Captain Eaton.
Yet again, tragic and predictable consequences of a broken parole system
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 01/14/2011 @ 11:50 AM
Deputy Mohammed Ahmed
On Tuesday night, Los Angeles County Deputy Mohammed Ahmed was shot in the face by career criminal Nestor Torres, who was on the streets of East Los Angeles after being paroled last September for the fourth time in three years. This is the latest in a long string of incidents in which a parolee with a violent criminal history takes advantage of a dysfunctional parole system to gain early release and then shoots an officer.
According to the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, Ahmed and his training officer were on patrol Tuesday night on North Brannick Avenue, near Floral Drive, when they spotted a man and a woman inside a car parked in a red zone. The deputies approached the man and a struggle ensued.
Sheriff’s Department officials said in their release that the suspect shot Ahmed in the face, and the training officer returned fire. The deputy and the suspect were both taken to County-USC Medical Center. Thankfully, Deputy Ahmed does not appear to have life-threatening injuries, although doctors fear he may lose sight in the injured eye. His partner suffered only minor injuries. Career criminal Torres was pronounced dead at the hospital, his life of crime halted.
Torres was a reputed gang member who went by the monikers "Demon" and "Neto." He was sentenced in 2004 to seven years in state prison in connection with the shooting of two men in a liquor store. They were shot for making the mistake of complimenting his tattoo.
Nestor Torres
He was initially paroled in November 2007. Since then, court records show, he was re-arrested and returned to custody four times on a variety of drug and firearm violations. His parole discharge date was still nine months away – September 8, 2011 – when he committed his final criminal act.
According to Los Angeles Times reporters Robert Faturechi and Andrew Blankstein, Deputy Ahmed had been on the beat for just a few weeks, learning the ropes in a rough stretch of the Eastside with a veteran deputy. A Somali immigrant, 27-year-old Ahmed was seen as a promising young deputy in the department. He supported his six younger siblings and mother with his salary.
We wish Deputy Ahmed a speedy recovery and hope he can fulfill his wish to return to duty as soon as possible. At the same time, we have to once again lament the fact that a parolee with a propensity to commit violent criminal acts was on the streets of Los Angeles instead of prison, fully serving his original sentence. It’s a contradiction to public safety to re-release parolees who have already been re-arrested because of new crimes. The system is set up to create new victims for repeat offenders – this time the victim was a Sheriff’s Department deputy.
We again ask, how many law enforcement officers and innocent people have to be hurt or killed before parolees who commit new crimes are sent back to prison to serve their entire original sentence?
Currently reading page 10 of 27.
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 Next Page
