May 2, 2007
Is the LAPD asking for an extended consent decree?

The LAPD's civil rights consent decree just got extended this past summer for another three years. Do videos like this and witness accounts help end this decree and get more officers back on the street instead of desk duty for consent decree paperwork? Not really.
Here is some excerpts from Daniel Hernandez's blog:
"The sight of cops standing shoulder-to-shoulder menacingly holding batons drew more onlookers, which drew more cops, which drew more onlookers. The pointless showdown kept escalating."
"Video footage online and on local TV stations shows officers clubbing and violently shoving teens, seniors, adults holding small children, and even reporters. One piece of footage shows officers senselessly beating a FOX 11 cameraman who had been knocked to the ground, and then striking FOX 11 reporter Christina Gonzalez who had stepped in to protest."
"Another woman, Sarah Araiza, said officers pushed her 13-year-old. 'They were pushing children! See that police officer, laughing like a jack-ass? That officer pushed my daughter. He pushed her for no reason,' Araiza said."
On Tuesday morning, Bratton suggested to KNX radio that he disapproved of the LAPD's actions at MacArthur Park. The Radio and Television News Association called for a investigation, CNS said. "There is evidence that officers knocked reporters to the ground, used batons on photographers and damaged cameras, possibly motivated by anger over journalists photographing efforts by officers to control the movements of the marchers," the RTNA said in a statement.
From my perspective as someone who works hand and hand with the LAPD as a community member, it is a great department. As everywhere, there are the bad apples -- and the difference between those who are corrupt in city offices and those in the LAPD is tax money swindling vs. baton swinging.
But whenever the police are in riot gear, the wisdom of both sides of the crowd seems to go sour. Chief Bratton said "missiles" were thrown (yes, that is a legal 1920s/30s term) and officers had to respond. As kids in school, we are taught to take the high road and let the bullies be; for us not to fall into the trap. If I were at a bar and someone threw a bottle at me and then I took a weapon of a higher degree and beat him senseless, guess who loses in court? Probably me unless he continued to throw bottles non-stop and it was the only way for me to protect myself.
Yeah, it is illegal to throw objects at the police (or anyone for that matter), but what if the LAPD just stood their ground? Could they target the so-called "few" who were causing the trouble that supposedly started all this? Maybe that wouldn't work, who knows. I'm no riot control expert.
Photo by Mr. Littlehand via Flickr



[ report this ]
I bet if we got rid of guns, we wouldn't have to live in a police state.
[ report this ]
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The only way we'd ever get rid of guns in the US is to have the police disarm people. And guess what kind of weapons they'd need to do that. And guess who'd still have guns when it was done.
The only thing standing between us and a police state is that people have guns. Even a cursory reading of 20th C. history will show that every police state makes sure to disarm its citizens first and foremost.
[ report this ]
exactly what josh strike said
[ report this ]
I should rephrase: handguns.
[ report this ]
william your argument makes no sense, please feel free to elaborate
[ report this ]
it would be great fun to tip over that row of bikes
[ report this ]
"Josh Strike"
You write about "cursory reading[s] of [the] 20th C." ... I'm sure your history reading, if any, was cursory!
Honestly, I'd be shocked if you even have a high school degree.
(Why is it that these uneducated idiots always feel they have enough self-importance or worth to spout off. Annoying!)
[ report this ]
I actually agree with the 2nd Ammendment insofar as it protects the right to bear arms if you are part of a MILITIA.
I just don't think that encompasses having gangbangers and whoever else walking around town with pieces they can tuck in their pants.
Let's not forget that police are human (I know, I know, who woulda thunk?). They have fear within them, also. When they know that ANY person on the street has access to a weapon that can kill them, you can bet your ass they are going to be more anxious than if that were not the case.
On the contrary, it is of the utmost importance that the people have the ability to defend themselves from aggression by the government.
What's interesting is that gun rights advocates not only defend the ownership of guns, they try to strike down any legislation that might hinder the use of them (almost always in urban settings). Where is the sense in that?
[ report this ]
Your barroom analogy falls flat. Police power allows the use of force to maintain law and order. The police, under the federal and state constitution, have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force. When an individual violently breaches the peace the police have an affirmative duty to use their power to contain and eliminate that threat. In doing so, violence, by consent of the governed, can be used. After the crowd became a mob, any peaceful demonstrator who wished to be separated from the mob should have followed police orders and dispersed. If police stood their ground while violence was occurring they would be failing in their responsibility to law and order.
Also,"Missile" is the current dictionary definition of a thrown object.