No outrage against attempted murder of police officers

By LAPPL Board of Directors

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.

h/t Jasmyne Cannick

Los Angeles police union issues statement

Los Angeles Police Protective League President Tyler Izen issued the following statement regarding the Ezell Ford incident:

“Increasingly, in the immediate aftermath of any police shooting, unvetted statements by persons claiming to be witnesses are given prominent play. While a factual investigation unfolds at a deliberate and slower pace, an inaccurate narrative can be created before the actual facts are determined. The Ezell Ford incident on August 11, 2014, in Newton Area is no exception, as we have read and viewed some inaccurate reports of what occurred.”

“It is critically important, both for the LAPD and the community to establish what actually happened. The LAPPL reminds everyone that it is necessary for a thorough and transparent investigation to take place so the final conclusion is trustworthy and can withstand critical scrutiny—and that will take time. This thorough and complete investigation is being conducted by Force Investigation Division. The Inspector General and the district attorney monitor the investigation and ensure that it is complete and unbiased. The preliminary facts, according to LAPD officials, are that two LAPD officers assigned to the Gang Enforcement Detail in Newton Area stopped Ezell Ford at about 8:10 p.m. as he walked on a sidewalk near 65th Street and Broadway in South Los Angeles. A violent struggle ensued, and Ford grabbed one of the officers and tried to remove the officer’s handgun from its holster, prompting a deadly use of force.”

“It goes without saying that no officer ever comes to work with the intention of taking a human life. However, when forced to make split-second, life-or-death decisions under stressful situations, officers rely on their training and what the law allows when using deadly force.”

“LAPD officers’ use of force is concise, consistent with prevailing law, and based on best police practices. Officers are permitted to use force that is objectively reasonable to defend themselves or others, to effect an arrest or detention, and/or to prevent escape or overcome resistance. Officers are taught to evaluate a suspect’s behavior, the severity of the crime a suspect is committing or about to commit, and whether it is reasonable to conclude that the suspect’s behavior might cause serious injury to an officer or another person.”

“If a suspect’s behavior is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, an officer can, by law and under LAPD policy, use deadly force. In using deadly force, officers can fire their weapons only to stop deadly threats to keep themselves and the public safe, and can continue to fire until the threat has ended.”

“The objectively reasonable standard was established by the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor. The court ruled an officer’s response must be evaluated by whether it was ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of what the officer knew at the time force was used. The ‘objective’ factor means the decision to use force is judged by what a reasonable officer, knowing the same facts, would have done. Importantly, the court then wrote the ‘20/20 vision of hindsight’ should not drive the determination. Further, “the calculus of reasonableness 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.”

“Reaching a final conclusion about what happened in the Newton incident is simply a rush to judgment. All of the facts are simply not known with certainty. Interviews with the involved officers, witnesses, and examination of the physical evidence will determine what happened. A judgment as to whether the action was proper and in policy, based on those gathered facts, will be made without 20/20 hindsight as mandated by the Supreme Court. An investigation into the use of deadly force is the most exhaustive type of examination the LAPD performs.”

h/t Jasmyne Cannick

You can Live/Sleep in Your Car in Los Angeles---Court Overturns Ban

By Jasmyne Cannick

A federal appeals court panel struck down Los Angeles' ban on using parked vehicles as ``living quarters'' today, ruling that the law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against the homeless and impoverished.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena unanimously ruled that the city's 1983 ordinance, which bans people from living in cars or recreational vehicles on city streets or in parking lots, is unconstitutionally vague and ``criminalizes innocent behavior.''

``This broad and cryptic statute criminalizes innocent behavior, making it impossible for citizens to know how to keep their conduct within the pale,'' Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the court.

A group of homeless car dwellers sued the city in 2011 but lost in Los Angeles federal court, leading to the appeal.

The Los Angeles law prohibits the use of vehicles as living quarters both overnight and ``day-by-day, or otherwise.''

A representative for the City Attorney's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In overturning the lower court, the appeals panel said the law had caused ``arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.''

Pregerson wrote that the statute is so vague that it could ``cover any driver in Los Angeles who eats food or transports personal belongings in his or her vehicle,'' but it ``appears to be applied only to the homeless.''

When Los Angeles police began aggressively enforcing the ban in 2010 after complaints from Venice residents, city officials said the law was designed to protect health and safety.

However, the appeals court determined that ``arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is exactly what has occurred here," according to the ruling.