Posted on Feb 21, 2016
Police in six Southern California counties have shot more than 2,000 suspects since 2004. Only...
3.22K
31
26
7
7
0
“Like it or not, the law provides huge cover for the police in these situations,” said Steve Cooley, L.A. County district attorney from 2000 to 2012. He said almost every shooting he reviewed was justified, but acknowledged he had a term for cases that were highly questionable but lacked the evidence to charge the officer: “awful but lawful.”
"Awful but Lawful" Police shootings where the police shoot an unarmed person (mistaking a cell phone for a gun, or someone making "furtive movement" (no weapon found), have become a major and high profile issue when it comes to police shootings today. Even the most ardent police supporters (and I consider myself one) are deeply disturbed by the facts, the ugly facts, that are behind some of the "lawful, but awful" police shootings we have witnessed here in LA City and LA County, and in SoCal in recent years. Especially the ones that involving serving Military or Veterans. A person is shot by the police here in Southern California on average of one every other day or so, going back to 2004, and only one Police Officer was actually prosecuted (in the unjustified shooting of an Iraq War vet), and that police officer was acquitted. Meanwhile the cities and counties (and Tax Payers ultimately) pay out a staggering amount (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) to settle the wrongful death law suits and other civil claims made against the police for "questionable shootings" often of unarmed persons.
Is there a remedy to fix this awful problem? Is it better training? Or more prosecutions of Police Officers who engage in highly questionable shootings? Should the authority to investigate and prosecute local police officers go to an Independent State Attorney General's Office that is largely immune to the local politics and pressures that the local District Attorneys are subjected to when they investigate (and clear for the most part) local police shootings?
Another former Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti, said the near certainty that local prosecutors won’t file charges against police means it’s time to take the decision out of their hands and give it to the state attorney general.
"Awful but Lawful" Police shootings where the police shoot an unarmed person (mistaking a cell phone for a gun, or someone making "furtive movement" (no weapon found), have become a major and high profile issue when it comes to police shootings today. Even the most ardent police supporters (and I consider myself one) are deeply disturbed by the facts, the ugly facts, that are behind some of the "lawful, but awful" police shootings we have witnessed here in LA City and LA County, and in SoCal in recent years. Especially the ones that involving serving Military or Veterans. A person is shot by the police here in Southern California on average of one every other day or so, going back to 2004, and only one Police Officer was actually prosecuted (in the unjustified shooting of an Iraq War vet), and that police officer was acquitted. Meanwhile the cities and counties (and Tax Payers ultimately) pay out a staggering amount (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) to settle the wrongful death law suits and other civil claims made against the police for "questionable shootings" often of unarmed persons.
Is there a remedy to fix this awful problem? Is it better training? Or more prosecutions of Police Officers who engage in highly questionable shootings? Should the authority to investigate and prosecute local police officers go to an Independent State Attorney General's Office that is largely immune to the local politics and pressures that the local District Attorneys are subjected to when they investigate (and clear for the most part) local police shootings?
Another former Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti, said the near certainty that local prosecutors won’t file charges against police means it’s time to take the decision out of their hands and give it to the state attorney general.
Police in six Southern California counties have shot more than 2,000 suspects since 2004. Only...
Posted from graphics.latimes.com
Police
Rights
Justice
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
Having the State AG investigate and review potential criminal charges involving police shootings could be a good beginning. There is a valid claim of potential conflict of interest if the local DA investigates police shootings.
The issue comes in trying to keep politics out of it. Considering the current California AG is hyper liberal and potentially anti-law enforcement (based on past statements), I don't know how I would feel if I was being investigated by her.
The issue comes in trying to keep politics out of it. Considering the current California AG is hyper liberal and potentially anti-law enforcement (based on past statements), I don't know how I would feel if I was being investigated by her.
(2)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
SMSgt Thor Merich I think the idea MSgt Merich is that the Special Unit of the AG's Office would administratively be part of the AG's Office, bust must overcome skepticism from both the rank and file of the LEOs and the Public that it would be sufficiently insulated and independent so as to not be subject from political pressures/influence one way or another (either pro or against Police Officers). The same battle is being played out in LA County with its new Sheriff oversight board, where the Supervisors do not want to give up control, and want to retain the power to appoint (and fire) the Commissioners to the Sheriff Oversight Board. This invariably brings charges of interference by the Supervisors in the way the board conducts its business. The best thinking IMHO is that the Board should be composed of Appointees who serve for a fixed amount of time, and can only be fired for "cause," and not because they voted or took actions that angered the LACO Supervisor who appointed them.
There are also disputes as to who should be on the board, retired LEOS, and/or active duty LEO? Some advocates say, no former or current LEO should be a voting member. It is a mess just getting to first base with any kind of county-wide "Law Enforcement Review Board." Or whatever the hell they end up calling it. Then there are debates about how much authority they should have? Will the Board have subpoena power, where they can subpoena witnesses and or documents? Will there be Penal Code violations for those who fail to answer their summons? What about people who lie under oath in their testimony before the Board? Or LEO Officials who refuse to turn over documents? How much would the Board interfere with Legitimate Police business with their subpoena of LEOs and or their confidential documents?
There are also disputes as to who should be on the board, retired LEOS, and/or active duty LEO? Some advocates say, no former or current LEO should be a voting member. It is a mess just getting to first base with any kind of county-wide "Law Enforcement Review Board." Or whatever the hell they end up calling it. Then there are debates about how much authority they should have? Will the Board have subpoena power, where they can subpoena witnesses and or documents? Will there be Penal Code violations for those who fail to answer their summons? What about people who lie under oath in their testimony before the Board? Or LEO Officials who refuse to turn over documents? How much would the Board interfere with Legitimate Police business with their subpoena of LEOs and or their confidential documents?
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Thor Merich
As far as the make-up of the board. Who is on the board is a big issue. In any industry, no one wants oversight from folks who don't know your business. A plumber doesn't want a painter to tell him how to do his job. I would want LE or at least someone who has to undergo training in the law enforcement techniques and the criminal justice system to be on any board with police oversight. The board should be made up of various folks from the community to get different perspectives, but they should have some type of training to be of value to the process.
The other questions you asked are all valuable questions that need to be asked before any type of oversight board is formed.
The other questions you asked are all valuable questions that need to be asked before any type of oversight board is formed.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
When I was stationed in Hawaii, the Honolulu Police Department came into the spotlight for excessive use of excessive force. (E-squared?) They embarked on a campaign to provide their officers with alternatives: More training in martial arts and psychological responses to dangerous situations. It worked. I well remember one incident after the new training programs had been implemented in which two officers were confronted with armed perpetrators. After one cop was wounded the other talked the perps into surrendering. (You know what ordinarily happens when a cop is shot, don't you?) Maybe therein lies an answer. Provide the police with better tools for better results. Of course, we don't have much left for "investments" after blowing the bank on funding welfare which only helps grow the antisocial society.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
In NY, they just changed it so that if the police shoot an unarmed person, the state AG is the investigating agency. If the oerson is armed when shot, its the local DA.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google