Decision Reached in Board of Rights Hearing

Los Angeles: An LAPD Board of Rights has reached a decision involving a use of force incident, which resulted in the death of 13-year old Devin Brown on February 6, 2005.

On January 31, 2005, members of the Los Angeles Police Commission found the use of force out of policy. The Commission determines whether or not the use of force was within the policies and procedures of the Department. It is not the responsibility of the Commission to determine whether an officer should be disciplined for that use of force.

The Los Angeles City Charter provides that subsequent to the Police Commission action, two Commanding officers` and a civilian hear evidence and determine if the actions of the officer rise to the level of misconduct, which would require discipline.

The findings of the Board of Rights now conclude all aspects of the investigation. The Department is unable to disclose further information concerning the investigation due to State law restrictions on the release of information related to confidential personnel investigations.

In commenting on the process, Chief Bratton stated, "I regret that current laws and legal restrictions preclude both the Police Commission and me from commenting on the decision, to include what the decision is. We are both committed to transparency and are frustrated with our inability to explain our respective actions in this matter, and those of the Board of Rights."

Comments

[Jim Reed]

Justice has prevailed. The exhaustive investigation followed by the Board of Rights has concluded that the officer acted within policy as he was taught. Any other decision whould have been devistating to the officers in the field who have to make split second decisions.

The indicent is now over and all should move on with their lives.

[Jeff]

Can anyone answer a question for me? Does the LA Police Commision have any Commissioners with any legitimate police experience? When I say "legitimate", I'm referring to time on the street, in a uniform, wearing a Sam Brown.

[Mac V]

Can the city get reimbursed now for the 1 million dollars it forked-over to the suspect's mother?

Two Captains and a civilian all said that the officer was in the right, why wouldn't a jury?

The City Atty. should be ashamed of himself for not taking this one to the box.

What does Officer Garcia get for being a victim? I'll tell ya what, NOTHING but a tarnished reputation and a red flag in his personnel folder.

The taxpayers and the officer are the true victims here, yet, unfortunately, they will be probably victimized again by the so-called leaders of this city.

Oh, I forgot to mention, what about the millions spent on investigating this shooting?

Talk about money down the drain.

Shame on City Atty. Delgadillo, PC Mack and his cronies.

Bravo to the Board of Rights folks who had the smarts to see what this shooting really was.

[DEV P2]

Hey Lt, with all of the news posts on this blog, I find it hard to believe that there was not a story on the Mission Patrol officer that was shot last week while on patrol and responding to a radio call. From all of the reports that I have heard the Officer is doing good and was discharged from the hospital within hours.

It just seems like this would be more of a story than the one I am actually commenting on. It is another unprovoked attack on us. And is certainly more important than the Chief making a statement about not being able to make a statement.

[Kevin]

Thank God the board memebers were people with common sense. Cant say the same for the Police Commision who found this out of policy.

What training and experience does the police commission have to say what is in policy and what is not? I mean most of the commission members never had a day of police expierence in their lives. So, besides reading the policies and never having any actual expierence when it comes to police work,it is very scary that they have the power to say if something a seasoned officer did was right or wrong. They should not have that power.

Especially where Mr. Mack was in front of cameras few years ago screaming and yelling on how corrupt the LAPD was. I hope you have some better insght on how tough police work is Mr. Mack. Not everyone stans in front of officers and does as told. If that was the case, there would be no shootings, there would be no uses of forces, there would be no crime. Stop taking tools away from officers and let them do their jobs! This sity can be a very violent place, be fair to the officers to be able to protect themselves, don't tie their hands with silly nonsense policies and rules that just does not make sense. All that does is make the bad guys more bold. As a result, there is very little respect for officers on the street.

I have supervisor friends who tell me the complaint policy is so out of whack that a complaint is taken for the most obvious stupid reasons and it litterally takes days costing the city thousands of dollars for a supervisor to investigate a complain that a 5 year old kid can tell you that it's stupid. My supervsior friends say they are often times embarassed to investigate some of these complaints and have to figure out what type of questions to ask the person making the complaint that will make sense for a nonsense complaint. I am sure we can save thousands of hours investigating bogus complaints which just cries out BOGUS. Let's come up with better solutions and save the tax payerers some money. I am sure there are some leaders in the dept who feel the same way, let's see who can stand up and do what is right. Furhter more when i was told that a nut on a mental hold in a hospital or a druggie or drunk can call and make the most ridiculous accusations and the officer has to take the complaint and have it investigated over the next several days.. PLEASEEE tell me that is not true!!!!!!

[ron]

A true Warrior Cop. Besides the fact that the kid should not have been out at that hour nor driving a stole car OR smoking pot. I feel that Office Garcia should have moved "OUT OF THE WAY" of the car instead of being a "WARRIOR COP" AND SHOOTING.
This is why you need to knock off this crap about calling yourselfs "WARRIOR COPS". One day this will come back to bite somebody in the butt!!!

[Loves LA LEOs]

I would like to be the civilian.

[ron]

I guess my comments are not what the LAPD wants to hear. I wonder if that is the reason why my comments have not been posted.

[Ed O'Shea]

Keep sipping that delusional kool-aid Ron! Devin Brown was not some misunderstood kid, he was a 54 Van Ness gangster, Moniker of "Lil Willie Gangster"! And shame on you, the media and his pathetic excuse of a parent! The photo that your cronies keep trotting out in the media is of when he was 8, not the most recent which is of him gesticulating his gang signs! And further I have ajusted this saying for Ron and his ilk!

"Ron, we live in a city that has Streets, and those Streets have to be guarded by men & women with guns. Whose gonna do it? You, Ronnie? You, Mr."community" activist? We, the Warrior Cops have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Parking, and you curse LAPD Cops. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know! That my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on these Streets, you need me on these Streets. We use words like honor, code and loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom and safety that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a Glock, Smith & Wesson or Berretta, and walk a footbeat in South Central Los Angeles. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

Your welcome for the safety blanket Ron! Extract your head Ron, the veiw is much clearer out here! And thank God that Stevie is ok. And your right Steve was, is and always will be a Warrior, so suck it up Ronnie!

Steve, we are all glad that you and your family are ok. You hung tough and thank God the Department made the right choice in the end, maybe not the popular one to the "COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS."

To all my fellow Warrior Cops, STAY SAFE!

Ed O'Shea

[Centurion]

Hey Dev P2, I work at the Castle and nobody has heard of the injured Officer at Mission that was attacked. Lt De La Torre why isn't there a press realease on this incident?

[juststartingout]

I love it when people make comments such as "He should have moved out of the way." It is a slippery slope that you do not want to find yourself on. Pretty soon the same thing will be said when a large muscular parolee gang memeber takes a swing at an officer. "He should have moved out of the way. In fact he should have ran to his police vehicle and locked the doors." It is the nature of the business. You find yourself in positions that require you to make choices. Running away is usually not the right choice. The choice that Steve Garcia made waa done so in less than 1 second. The critics have had over one year now to tell him what the "correct" choice was. Cut the guy a break and instead focus on the choices that Devin Brown's mother made in the 13 years that he was alive that led to him driving a stolen car in the middle of the night in South Los Angeles.

[Just watching]

Gee Ron,

I see two posts on this blog from you...it takes a while to post comments. Just goes to prove how many people want that instant gratification that only jumping the gun can give you! Oh wait!...did I say gun? I don't want to be mistaken for a...God forbid...WARRIOR COP!

Realistically, jumping to, and on, conclusions and accusations seem to be the only exercise some people get! Besides, if coppers didn't succumb to the occasional human error, what on earth would everyone have to whine about?

[ron]

Mr.just starting out. I still say he should have moved out of the way and not shot the kid.

[Loves LA LEOs]

Ed O'Shea and JustStartingOut are right on point. As the parent of a nearly 37 year old African American male, I can tell you for sure Devin Brown got a raw deal from his parents and from his community, not from Steven Garcia. When my child was born, my fears for his safety from the LAPD and LASD at that time were not unwarranted. So I protected him, and prayed for a better day. Now the officers of LAPD and LASD are the change I prayed for, and the same way I protected my child, I will protect them and fight for them with all I am and all I have. And I vote. If John Mack is still on the police commission when the mayor comes up for reelection, I will be voting for someone else.

[ron]

I must have struck a nerve!!! It's reallly sad the way you people respond when someones has a different opinion. I guees the great and almighty Warrior cops have spoken and put this citizen in his place. If John Mack is not of the commision I will vote for someone else.

[copwatch]

WHY DO YOU MODERATE POST? IS IT BECAUSE YOU MEANING LAPD DO NOT LIKE HEARING THE TRUTH FROM THE CITIZENS WHO PAY YOUR WAGES. I BET IF YOU OFFICERS WERE LIABLE TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN LAWSUITS INSTEAD OF THE TAX PAYERS PAYING FOR YOUR ATTORNEY YOU WOULD LESS LIKELY TO VIOLATE PEOPLE RIGHTS!!!

[COPWATCH]

WHY DO COPS PROTECT REAL CRIMINALS IN THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION? THIS IS WHAT MAKES GOOD COPS JUST AS BAD AS THE BAD ONES FOR NOT DOING WHAT IS RIGHT!!!

Officer had been warned in prior case

One more offense would probably get Steven Garcia fired, said the LAPD captain who voted not to punish him in teen's fatal shooting.

By Scott Glover, Times Staff Writer

January 13, 2025

A Los Angeles Police Department captain who voted not to discipline Officer Steven Garcia this week in the shooting of 13-year-old Devin Brown had warned him in a previous disciplinary case that one more offense would probably get him fired.

Yet that history was ignored in the Board of Rights hearing on Brown's death because LAPD rules typically do not allow an officer's past misconduct to be considered.

The realization that Garcia had previously come so close to losing his job reopened an old debate, with critics suggesting that the LAPD does not always sufficiently consider the past conduct of officers in deciding whether to punish them.

Over the last few days the Brown decision has touched off sharp recriminations in Los Angeles politics as top officials bemoaned the spectacle of an internal police panel undercutting the work of the department's civilian leadership, a Police Commission appointed by the mayor.

Because the hearing was also conducted in secret after LAPD officials closed it in response to a recent court ruling, both Police Chief William J. Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for new laws that would keep such procedures open. The tumult Friday even compelled Garcia to waive his privacy rights and agree to release a transcript explaining the board's reasoning.

Under LAPD rules, prior discipline can be presented as evidence in a new case only if it is used to demonstrate a pattern of misconduct. If an officer is ultimately found guilty of an offense, past discipline may then be considered in determining punishment. As with similar rules in criminal court, restrictions on the admissibility of past misconduct are intended to protect against undue prejudice.

Andre Birotte Jr., the LAPD's civilian watchdog, said the department's rules about what constitutes admissible prior conduct are too restrictive.

Regardless of whether there's a pattern, Birotte said, offenses such as lying or very specific acts alleged more than once should be made known to those sitting in judgment.

"It's a tricky issue," Birotte said, however. "It should be determined on a case-by-case basis."

Jeffrey C. Eglash, who served as the LAPD's inspector general from 1999 through 2002, said "the department has historically taken an unnecessarily narrow view" of the use of prior evidence.

"When relevant evidence about an officer's complaint or use-of-force history that would be admitted in an actual trial is excluded in a Board of Rights, that unnecessarily tilts the playing field" in the officer's favor, said Eglash, now a private attorney in Connecticut. "I think that's wrong."

In the previous disciplinary proceeding against Garcia, he received a severe 44-day suspension for, among other things, intimidating a witness not to testify against him in an excessive-force case. The presiding officer, Capt. Bruce Crosley, issued the patrolman a stern warning:

"You may rest assured," Crosley told Garcia, "that any recurrent incident will likely end your career with this organization."

Crosley, although now retired, also sat in judgment of Garcia in the Brown hearing this week.

In a telephone interview, Crosley agreed that his admonition in the earlier case contained harsh words "meant to send a message." But, having sat on scores of disciplinary panels in the interim, Crosley said he did not recall those earlier details when he served on the Brown panel with another LAPD captain and a civilian representative.

Because Garcia was found not guilty, Crosley said, his past was irrelevant.

"Our decision was based on the evidence in this immediate case alone," Crosley said.

On Friday, Ann Reiss Lane, the civilian member of the panel, said she was unaware of Garcia's previous punishment.

"That makes me very uncomfortable that I didn't know that," said Lane, a former Police Commission member.

"But," she added, "we can't know that." She declined to comment further.

Garcia fatally shot Brown in 2005 as the youth allegedly tried to back into him with a stolen car. The Police Commission, which provides civilian oversight of department policy, determined that the car was traveling no faster than 2 mph and that Garcia had stepped out of the way by the time he opened fire. The officer's contention that he fired because his life was in danger "was not objectively reasonable," the commission concluded.

Garcia's earlier disciplinary problems stem from an incident in May 1997 in which he and his partner were pursuing robbery suspects.

After a three-mile chase that led from Koreatown to Echo Park, the suspects jumped out of their car and ran in opposite directions. The officers split up and gave chase. Garcia pursued the passenger, later identified as Francisco Morales. He found Morales hiding in some bushes a couple of blocks away.

Morales told internal affairs investigators that he raised his hands in surrender as Garcia approached and that the officer ordered him to lie face-down.

When he complied, Morales said, Garcia kicked him in the face. The officer then handcuffed him and brought him to his feet, Morales said.

When he asked Garcia why he kicked him, Morales said, the officer told him "if he didn't want the charges to be worse he'd better keep quiet," records show.

Garcia gave a slightly different account in his interview with an internal affairs investigator.

The officer acknowledged kicking Morales but said he did so in self-defense, believing that the suspect was about to charge him. He denied kicking him in the head, however. He said the blow was to the suspect's torso.

Sgt. Al Ruvalcaba, who investigated Morales' complaint, said in an interview Wednesday that he determined there was sufficient evidence to charge Garcia with excessive force. But Ruvalcaba, now retired, said his captain did not formally charge the officer before the LAPD's one-year deadline had expired. As a result, the excessive-force charge did not proceed to the Board of Rights.

However, Garcia was charged with lying to investigators, threatening witnesses not to testify against him and disobeying an order not to discuss his case.

Garcia's ex-girlfriend, Grace Ferrer, told the disciplinary panel that Garcia admitted to her that he intentionally kicked Morales in the head and that he was going to lie to investigators about how the suspect was injured, documents show.

According to a transcript, board members were concerned about Ferrer's objectivity and could not determine whether she was being entirely truthful.

But they did find that Garcia had threatened Ferrer during a conversation in early 1999, before she was due to testify.

"It is the opinion of the board that the profanity and forcefulness with which Garcia admonished Ferrer not to involve herself in the complaint process was intended to serve as a threat to dissuade her from cooperating with the department," Crosley said at the time.

Garcia was also found guilty of disobeying a direct order by discussing the case with Ferrer in the first place. He was found not guilty of the remaining charges.

[JustanObserver]

It doesn't matter what Steve Garcia does, you will never satisfy some of the Monday morning quarterbacks. I distinctly remember a group of news media going to the police academy and being placed in the FATS shooting simulater and coming out in astonishment at how many innocent civilians they shot when they were forced to make a split second decision. You have to give the Garcia a lot of credit for releasing the BOR transcripts. You know what I see in him doing that? A good cop who is still trying to appease the thankless people he serves everyday by putting his life on the line everyday. Do they really think that Officer Garcia is unaffected by the life he was forced to take? If the public really thinks that officers are that callous and enjoy these kind of outcomes, then they are more clueless than I could ever possibly imagine.

Not once have I heard the so-called community leaders question why the #$%@ a 13-year-old was driving a stolen car at that time of night? So easy to judge others rather than take responsibility for your own lousy parenting. When you are guilty and you know you were wrong, you shift the blame to others. Psychology 101, it's called projectionism.

Don't be too harsh on the City Attorney though, because even though I think some things they do are totally stupid, remember that these same Monday morning quarterbacks will be the ones who sit on the jury. Remember the Rampart caper with the Miami doctor who was in a car Budget Rent-a-Car had reported stolen. The jury gave him 33 million. So there went millions of dollars to Florida!

The one thing I have to agree with though, is that we have to stop calling ourselves Warrior Cops. I have worked patrol for many years all over the City and what I can tell you is that people in the public just can't fathom the world we work in so although we know what we mean by the term Warrior Cops, the public finds it harsh and thinks it is just more proof to support their theory that it is US vs. Them. We need them to understand that it is us and the good, supportive citizens against the low life of this City. Maybe we could think up a more fitting AKA. May you all stay safe in 2007.

[Kat]

****RON YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!!! YOU BLEEDING HEART!!!! You don't even know what you are talking about. Maybe you should be out on the street, and move out of the way when a car is about to strike you. We are not here to second guess the officer. We don't know what it's like to work in the streets of Los Angeles, especially areas such as, South Central, Skid Row, etc. I've always said, these officers don't get the praise or pay that they should. We never hear about officers doing a good job, only internally do you hear that. No, we only hear idiots like you, and the "wonderful" community activists speaking their garbage.****

^^^^KUDOS to Mr. O'Shea & Just Starting Out! I just wish we had someone who could come out and say all of this on live t.v. Of course, it will never happen. It makes me sick to hear about this and other cases (i.e. Jose Pena) where it's always the officer's fault. These people never want to take responsibility for their actions. I want to know where the hell this kids mother is. She's out spending her money. She knew what her son was doing, and she still had the nerve to sue the city. People like her are what makes her community a disgrace. There is a long list of others, but the Susie Pena Family is another disgrace. Hey Ron, should the cops have moved out of the way when that idiot was shooting at them? Or, should we have waited for him to shoot someone else, and the have to listen to why the cops didn't do anything? ^^^^

****Being an LAPD Wife, it irritates me to read these types of comments. I have learned to try and read and ignore most of what gets on this blog, but when idiots such as Ron write of bunch of garbage, what to do? I have yet to read something about us. We have wonderful places such as, wives association, lapdwife. In Manhattan Beach, we have a wonderful group of ladies that are wives of officers with various agencies. I would love the idiots at the LA Times to write an article about us. No one ever writes articles about the other side of what is going on in the mind of an officer when he is being challenged – his family!!! Ron, do you really think an officer doesn't think - will it be me or the thug who is driving a car, or shooting at me? LA City is getting worse. Gone are the days when my father-in-law patrolled Skid Row, and being a cop was a great. It’s still a great profession, one to be admired. With people like you and the ACLU, and every other garbage activist, you guys take away what is good about being an officer. I hope you leave this blog, and never write again, but my guess is, you won’t. You also don't know what it is like to kiss your wife/husband goodbye, then pray and wait for him to walk through the door. When they do come in at EOW, then you know he did his job, and he did it well.****

[Rob]

The comments in this blog appear counter productive. I wonder how many idiotic comments need to be made in this forum before the press starts printing from this blog and the public reacts in its usual fashion. You have a dead 13 year old boy who was on his way to being a gang member and the public is mad that an officer shot him. If the public wants you to dive out of the way before blasting a bunch rounds down range, then listen carefully. It is clear that being an officer is unfair and political and that is unfortunate. If the L.A. public and your mayor's appointees want to discipline someone and you fail to do it, then beware the consequences. Mob rule may not get that officer fired, but there are enough people in power who listen to the public who will change the way the LAPD does business. Continue calling the officer a victim and the kid a gang member. Keep speaking ill of Mack and the police commission. These people got rid of Gates, brought in Williams, then brought in Parks and implented the consent decree. Fairness, due process and sympathy for police officers weren't considered for the LAPD during those decisions. How will the people with legitmate power react to this decision? What type of rules and laws will they put in place to send your Board of Rights a message?

[JB]

I find it interesting the Chief is contributing to the ongoing "controversy" on whether UOF boards and BOA hearings should be open to the public. The LA Times, community "activist", and all the other left leaning legal pundits are wringing their hands over not being able to obtain board transcripts. But Chief when is the last time the LATimes has not been able to somehow get a hold of supposedly confidential documents? The LAPD has a history of leaking officer's allegedly confidential personal packages to the LA Times. Times reporters have knocked on officer's doors; they have trotted out decade old allegations of misconduct, etc. How did they get that information?

Officer Garcia headed off the LATimes obtaining the transcripts of the hearing by releasing them through his attorneys. But does anybody have any doubts the Times all ready had a copy? The controversy of the "secret" meetings (they make it sound like it the meetings are held in some underground bunker, with machine gun toting guards) is nothing but the Times wanting to sell more papers. The Times will always be able to obtain confidential documents in this City. There is no such thing as a secret meeting, especially within the Department with so many trying to position themselves for the next big promotion.

The question is: Why did the Times bury the fact that Officer Garcia released the transcripts himself? Why are they not talking about the testimony and investigation revealed in the transcripts? Is it because a thorough and complete investigation showed Officer Garcia reacted reasonably that tragic night? Of course the fact that a LAPD officer acted lawfully and reasonably does little to the bottom line of selling papers and holding on to "activist" titles.

[Line Reserve Guy]

Ron & Copwatch...

Why do you paint the entire LAPD or Cops in general with one broad stroke of the brush? Racists have the same mentality.

Copwatch, when you try to run over a police officer as little Devon tried to do, you become an immediate threat and police officers have the right to use deadly force if they fear for their life or the lives of others as was clearly the case here. He would have had his day in court had he not tried to run over Officer Garcia, so would have the two guys who dressed up in bullet proof kevelar suits and shot up the Bank of America in North Hollywood...what part of that don't you understand?

Police don't violate people's civil rights, they catch bad guys and thugs and take them off the street so you can be safe. But if you feel that a police officer has violated your rights or the rights of someone you know, feel free to go to the front desk of your local station and file a report, and you can bet it will be fully investigated, as the LAPD has no place for nasty, rude or otherwise unfriendly police officers...

[Ed O'Shea]

COPWATCH = malcontent degenerate GANG member!!! Double up on the medication COPWATCH your relapsing! You and all your cronies over there at COPWATCH are a farce and I wonder with a piss poor attitude like yours why you have had a tough time with authority?!? COPWATCH is an antipolice, Antiestablishment, Anti-Community HATE GROUP, who would like anarchy to overtake Los Angeles. And they vilify the Police and anyone who disagrees with them racist titles. But it is they who are hate-mongers, and gang facilitators. All COPWATCH supporters and "activists", DON"T call me when your getting your HEAD KICKED in by the very gangsters that you profess to speak for! Though if I see it happen me and my fellow WARRIORS will most likely intervene, but please be sure to alert us as to who you are so we can get you a supervisor to cry and complain to, and don't worry I won't disappoint you if the suspect is violent and combative, you'll get a good show for your YOUTUBE compilation, you SLAP! A pugilistic display for you to cringe over! When the moe's at COPWATCH are in a huff, I know that we, The LAPD, are doing something right!

Thank you to all the Police Officers wives & Family members that don't get thanked nearly enough!

And to all my fellow Warriors, hit hard, hit quick and KEEP ON HITTING until the threat STOPS!

Stay Safe

Ed O'Shea

[Jeff]

Copwatch & Ron,

Although your lack of common sense,intelligence, and lack of reasoning comments do strike a nerve of the individuals that go out day and night to protect your right to voice those absurd comments, we keep in mind that you are just part of the loud mouth minority and in reality, the overwhelming & passive majority respects and supports police officers.

Copwatch, you mention that my boy, Ed, is watching too many movies. I too recognize the scene from "A Few Good Men" but on that note let me remind you, "Training Day" is fantasyland, make-belive, a little far-fetched, if you're hearing me.

Also, as I've said before, all of us in blue are taxpayers also, therefore, before you jump on that "I pay your salary" band wagon, keep in mind that since we are taxpayers, we pay our own salaries, self employed. But if you still feel that you have contributed to our salary, I have your contribution, a penny, in my pocket that you can have back!

To all the "good guys" out there, stay safe.

[Kelly]

My first impulse as I was reading this blog was to write in about my personal pet peeve: monday morning quarterbacking from people who have no useful experience in the area of which they criticize. I have never enforced the law, fought in a war or run into a burning building and until I do I have no right or authority to critique the work of people who have or do and as far as I'm concerned neither does anyone else. Bottom line is we don't know what it is like to have make those decisions. The only opinion I want to hear is from someone who has been in the trenches, so to speak.

That was my first impulse until I came to the blogs posted by CopWatch. I was so disturbed by those entries that I went up on their website to see what they were about and it appears that this organization is dedicated to the eradication of effective policing if not all policing. CopWatch posed the question: what rights and freedoms do the police protect for us (paraphrased)? Let me address that from a layman's perspective. As a tax paying citizen and mother of a small child I have the reasonable expectation of safety--to go to work, run my errands, play with my daughter and be in my home without myself or my family being robbed, raped, harrassed or brutalized in any way. And who is going to protect that right for me? Not Copwatch. Who will I call if some is threatening myself of my child? Not Copwatch. I'm calling 911 and requesting police and until Copwatch can provide that protection better than the police, I don't want to hear from them.

Meanwhile, thank you to the police officers who risk their lives to defend my right and who get to deal with the likes of Copwatch as a reward. I don't know how you do it--I couldn't. My guess is that Copwatch couldn't either.

[Loves LA LEOs]

Kat and the other families in your group, thank you for your sacrifice. Your spouses ARE the difference, just by being who they are. So are you, and your children. I care for you, and pray for all of you, that you may have all of the abundant good, all of the peace, all of the joy we all desire. You are my heroes. I owe you all so very much, more than I can say here. What you do does matter, it does make a vital and positive difference. It changes the world for the better. Please do not become discouraged by the terrorist chatter of egos, of "nothing trying to be something." Please know a better world is being born in our time, and your sacrifices are to that end. Your lives matter to me.

[copwatch]

We don't want to eradicate Good police officers, we want to eradicate corrupt police officers. Police Officer need to be reminded of the Oath they took when they were sworn in to uphold the constitution of the United States, treat people with respect and dignity and don't abuse your authority. Kelly you ask who is going to protect you from a violent encounter well I hope you don't wait for the cops to show up because you know as well as I do that they show up after the fact. You need to protect yourself and can not rely on the police to protect you. Their are more good people out there than bad. I to hate the gang bangers out there and people committing crimes against innocent people but you need to catch them committing the crime not when they are just walking down to the street going to the grocery store etc. As long as cops keep violating the civil rights of people and abusing people, organizations like COPWATCH, ACLU, BLACK PANTHERS, BROWN BERETS, AND SO MANY OTHERS WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD POLICE OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. If you are scared of your husband being a cop then he should go out and get a real job and stop stealing from the tax payer. You do not pay your wages my friend, how can you pay for your wages from tax payer money. You might buy a carton of smokes or a few cases of beer and contribute that way but do not lie that you pay for your wages.

[K Stone]

Look, copwatch, Kelly has you pegged. You are cult fodder and your rant is terrorist chatter. Go back to school, get an education, or join the military so you can have associations with a better class of people who will help you grow up. Otherwise, you are headed straight for your own demise. No one is wrecking your world but you. Make better choices - or not. It's up to you.

[Kat]

First of all, Cop watch should learn to spell & read. His grammar is a horrendous. It is very hard to read what garbage he is trying to write. It's a joke that people like him like to get on these boards and write, but they do not know how to spell or punctuate their words. Maybe you should go back to school, that is if you ever went at all, or finished. You write like an idiot!

Second, Kelly never wrote her husband was an officer. That would be me. You come across as a person, like Ron, that just reads but does not read well. You like to “try” and make a point, but you never do. I never said that I was scared of him being one. In fact, I am proud of him, and his family. They do something you could never imagine. Again, learn to read and understand. Of course, I understand that your kind of people don't understand what I am writing about. You will never understand what I go through, and I won’t even get into that, because it’s private, and it’s only shared with friends and family. I know it must upset that ignorant mind of yours that police officers have to do what they need to do in order to protect themselves and the community they serve. As for a real job, well, my husband has one, and he does it well. The taxpayer comment does not even make sense. Do you forget that Devin Brown's mother took money from the city that taxpayers are going to have to foot. Money that is making her happy, now that she doesn't have to deal with that delinquent. Thank goodness for us, because we don’t live within the city. Unlike you, he does not sit and write stupid things he doesn't know about. You are not an officer, and neither are any of the so called activists. I know it must be eating at you that the panel took the action they took. This issue won’t be dead for a while. Officer Garcia did nothing wrong. All he did was protect himself and his partner. What your city got was on less piece of garbage off the streets. Like Mr. O'Shea wrote, let's hope you never get your head kicked in. On the other hand......

[Kat]

To Loves LA LEOs: Thanks!

[Line Reserve Guy]

Copwatch,
You contradict yourself by saying that "there are more good people out there than bad." I assume you are referring to police officers, yet then you tell Kat that her husband should get a "real job". You are nothing more than a narrow minded biggot.

You speak of the Black Panthers as if they have done any good for the community, much less society as a whole. You just have shown your hand and you are nothing more than an individual who supports anarchy and criminal organizations. As if the Black Panthers have done any good for the African American Community.

You're a great role model and mentor to the community and it's people like YOU who set race relations back 50 years! But you won't prevail because the truth is much bigger and more powerful than victims like you.

[Monica]

Its not surprising that once again the spin cycle of the media has blown this issue way out of proportion. When the media used the word "secret" everyone jumped on the bandwagon. The fact is LAPD was adhering to the city attorney's advise after the Supreme Court decision on the Copley case. That being said there are many community members citywide who support the Board of Rights decision. Unfortunately, the media won't report that voice. Is it any wonder LAPD is finding it difficult recruiting new officers when we have politicians in our city who rarely support the rank and file? The media portray our officers as the suspects instead of the victims. Thankfully the intelligent people of this city know better. In 2006 officers were shot at 23 times and this year already an officer was shot and injured in the line of duty and another shot at but not injured last week by a gang member. Where is the outrage from our politicians and the people? The same black activists who are speaking out on the Board of Rights hearings are the same ones who condemned the officers before an investigation had even begun. They also are the ones who have threatened violence to our officers and this city if they don't get their way. These are the voices the media give attention to. Again, where is the voice of our politicians? We support our rank and file and thank them every day for doing a great job with little resources and not enough support from this city. God Bless You All and Be Safe!

[Line Reserve Guy]

Lt...
Not sure if you want to post this or not, but below is Jack Dunphy weighing in on this issue...

What Cops Have to Put Up With — Again
A two-year ordeal doesn’t end.

By Jack Dunphy

After almost two years, it’s all over but the shouting. And there’s been lots and lots of shouting.

Last Monday, a Los Angeles Police Department disciplinary panel ruled that Officer Steven Garcia did not violate LAPD policy when he shot and killed 13-year-old Devin Brown at the end of a pre-dawn pursuit on February 6, 2005. With this ruling the panel, known as a board of rights, effectively negates an earlier determination by the civilian Police Commission that Garcia’s actions were “out of policy” and that he should be punished. Garcia is now free to resume his police career free of any official sanctions arising from the shooting. Whatever unofficial sanctions he might face are yet to be seen.

And this is where the shouting starts. Leading the Chorus of the Perpetually Outraged is of course the Los Angeles Times, whose writers and editors erected a veneer of objectivity in their coverage but nonetheless left their bias on vivid display. Here’s how the Times began the story, which ran on page A1 of last Wednesday’s edition:

A Los Angeles Police Department disciplinary board has secretly decided not to punish the officer who fatally shot 13-year-old Devin Brown two years ago, rejecting an earlier ruling by the civilian Police Commission that the act violated department policy, sources confirmed Tuesday.

Members of an LAPD board of rights, meeting behind closed doors Monday, determined that Officer Steven Garcia was justified in shooting Brown as the youth allegedly tried to back a stolen car into the officer after a brief pursuit.

Note the use of charged terminology: The board met behind closed doors and secretly decided, as confirmed by shadowy sources. And Devin Brown is described as a youth who allegedly tried to back a stolen car into the officer.

First of all, as to the use of the word “allegedly,” Devin Brown is dead, so the folks at the Times need not fret about libeling him with accusations of misdeeds unproven in court. It is uncontested that before being shot Brown rapidly backed the stolen car directly at Officer Garcia. Whether he did so in a deliberate attempt to run the officer down or was rather merely indifferent to the possibility he might do so cannot be known, and in any event it is of little consequence in evaluating the whether Garcia’s conduct was within LAPD policy.

Next, as to the secrecy of the proceedings: Only by reading further into the Times’s story does the reader learn that the LAPD’s decision to close boards of rights to the public was based on advice from City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who based that advice on a 2006 California Supreme Court case. That case, Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, affirmed the confidentiality of police personnel records already codified in several provisions of state law.

(Though the Copley decision does not specifically address disciplinary hearings, which in Los Angeles were open to the public until last year, Delgadillo reasoned that the confidentiality of police personnel records could not be maintained if such records were quoted from and otherwise discussed in a public forum. There can be a reasonable debate about whether it is wise public policy to hold these hearings in private, but the openness demanded by LAPD critics is clearly incompatible with current state law. LAPD Chief William Bratton, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and other city leaders have used the occasion to call for legislation to reopen the hearings. Insomniacs may find relief by reading the Copley decision here.)

The board’s conclusion that Officer Garcia was not guilty of misconduct points out an anomaly in the management of the LAPD. The five-member Police Commission is the titular head of the department, with the authority to set policy but not to discipline officers. Discipline is imposed only by the chief of police. In the Devin Brown case, Bratton reviewed the investigation conducted by the department’s Force Investigation Division and determined that Garcia’s actions were within policy.

But all shootings and other incidents resulting in a suspect’s death or serious injury are also evaluated by the Police Commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor. The commission, by a 4-1 vote, ruled that Garcia had acted improperly should be disciplined. The trial board’s rejection of that ruling came as a surprise to some on the commission. “I’m very, very disappointed in that finding,” said John Mack, the commission’s president. “Our commission felt the facts were clear. It was my expectation that the board of rights would see the facts as we saw them and take disciplinary action.”

It is important to note Mack’s background here. Prior to his appointment to the Police Commission, he was president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Urban League, and in that role was a longtime critic of the LAPD. Addressing the Devin Brown shooting shortly before his appointment to the commission, Mack told reporters, “This shooting represents another tragedy inflicted on our community by an LAPD officer . . . My heart goes out to [Brown’s] family.” And in an appearance on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor, Mack stated flatly that Garcia should not have shot Brown. “[The officers] were out of the car and in no danger whatsoever, and Officer Garcia unloaded 10 rounds, three, four into the car, into young Devin Brown . . .”

Having made such statements, perhaps Mr. Mack will understand why LAPD officers have doubts as to his objectivity, and why they view his continued service on the Police Commission as an insult.

Returning to the coverage the story has received in the Los Angeles Times, it was at first difficult to discern which aspect of the board’s decision the paper found more disturbing, the outcome or the fact that it was reached in secret. Editorial decisions made apparent in the following days provided the answer. On Thursday, the paper ran a news story, an editorial, and an op-ed piece, all of which called for more openness in the LAPD. The op-ed was written by Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who wrote that “[i]t seems inexplicable that the board of rights, composed of two high-level police officers and one civilian, found that the fatal shooting of a teenage boy under these circumstances was justified.”

I have no doubts as to Chemerinsky’s sincerity when he says he find’s the board’s decision “inexplicable.” The occupation of law professor is not one commonly thought to be fraught with peril. It must indeed be impossible for the professor to place himself in the shoes of a police officer aiming a weapon at someone and deciding, in the blink of an eye, whether or not to pull the trigger. But, putting the limitations of his life experience aside, Chemerinsky presents himself not only as a legal scholar but also as an expert on the LAPD. For him to be baffled by the board’s decision would indicate that he is unfamiliar with the decision by the Los Angeles County district attorney not to prosecute Garcia for the Brown shooting. The D.A.’s rationale for declining to prosecute Garcia was made public more than a year ago. Chemerinsky and anyone else with an interest in the matter can read the report here.

If you read the D.A’s report, you’ll see it comports well with the rationale cited by the board of rights in finding Garcia not guilty. That rationale was made public by Garcia and his lawyers on Friday, which should have salved the many hearts at the Los Angeles Times so troubled by the board’s secrecy.

But wait. When the board’s rationale was released, did the Times run the story on its front page, as they did the original story? No, they did not. The story instead ran on page B10 of Saturday’s edition. Even more incredible — and more revealing about the agenda at the newspaper — is the story they chose to run on page B1 (and which they teased on page A1). “Officer had been warned in prior case,” read the headline, and the story that followed told of Officer Garcia’s 44-day suspension that resulted from an incident in 1997.

Thus, though the Times decried the secrecy surrounding the board’s decision to clear Garcia, the rationale for that decision was deemed less newsworthy than a nine-year-old incident that, conveniently for the Times, portrays Garcia in a negative light. Though that incident, like the Devin Brown shooting, began with a car chase, what led to Garcia’s being disciplined was actually a dispute with a vindictive former girlfriend. As if to underscore the need for police officers’ personnel records to be protected, the unflattering details of the earlier case were leaked to the Times, which was only too happy to print them. Had the Times investigated the matter further, they would have learned that Garcia was given a bureau commendation for his actions that night, which resulted in the arrest of a man wanted for multiple felonies, including attempted murder. Perhaps there wasn’t sufficient space in the paper that day to print such trivial details.

The irony was no doubt unintended, but also appearing on page B1 of Saturday’s paper was a the following headline: “‘Marshall Plan’ urged to stop L.A. gang crime.” The story told of efforts being made to combat the havoc caused by the city’s 720 separate street gangs and 39,000 gang members. Any campaign against gang crime will require cops to go out on the streets and confront the criminals, and some small portion of those confrontations will be violent. If cops can expect an ordeal like that experienced by Steven Garcia these past two years, how many will choose place themselves and their livelihoods in peril? We’ll see, won’t we?

[Centurion]

Hey Jeff, the break down in our tax dollars to pay our salaries in the City of LA is 5 cents per residence. So you actually owe Dumbwatch...oops...I mean Copwatch 4 cents. Stay Safe out there

[copwatch]

I will take your 4 cents at 8000 plus officers and use the money for legal defense against unlawful arrest by police officers. What you cops don't get is that if you had to pay for your own legal defense instead of the tax payers paying for your defense in civil matters you would treat people with more respect and not abuse your authority like so many do. You can call me all the names you want but I know it pisses you cops off when people hold you guys accountable. Long live COPWATCH, POLICEABUSE.ORG, COPWATCH.COM

[Lynn]

As I am reading these blog entries I can sense the officers' and their wives' frustration. It must be very hard to have to be under so many rules,restrictions and pressure when dealing with criminal minded people who have no rules to guide them. Please don't give up on us law abiding citizens who need you. Thank you LAPD for all your hard work and dedication to the City of Los Angeles and God Bless you all.