Police enforcement is one of the most dangerous yet admirable professions in the world. Brave men and women make the ultimately sacrifice daily by placing their lives on the line in the most dangerous situations to ensure the safety of the public. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is the second largest police department in the nation and is known to have a great deal of dedicated and trained officers to protect the public. Unfortunately, the LAPD is also known to have a great deal of officers that do not protect the public. LAPD’s history shows more than almost any other police department that it is in need of major reform to better serve the people of Los Angeles. The city has attempted to address this problem for nearly 20 years yet has been unsuccessful in improving the quality of the department. Time and time again the department has attempted reform and it has achieved little to no progress in doing so. The LAPD is unequipped to handle the culture of police misconduct that is firmly apart of the department and will only be able to reform through the aggressive legal actions of an independent agency that is given the powers necessary to police the department.
For many years, the LAPD has represented the worst aspects of what is wrong with police enforcement in the United States. It has a long history of insufficient training, police misconduct, evidence planting and vigilante apprehension tactics. Up until the 1990’s there was absolutely nothing being done about LAPD’s illegal activities, and only 2% of all claims of police misconduct were validated by the department (Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States). In most cases the officers participating in police misconduct were the same officers receiving promotions to higher ranking positions.
In 1991 it took the graphic video of the Rodney King beating to be seen worldwide, 54 deaths from rioting in South Los Angeles, and $700 million in damages for the city to finally take action against the LAPD. 4 months later, the Christopher Commission Report was created to conduct a full analysis of the complete structure and operation of the LAPD over a 5 year period. Like Los Angeles residents had known for years, the Christopher Commission Report found widespread evidence of systemic police brutality, a nearly non-existent disciplinary structure, and a “code of silence” that discouraged other officers from reporting police misconduct. Among other recommendations for department reform, the Commission report suggested the importance of a new form of Officer accountability. “Ugly incidents will not diminish until ranking officers know they will be held responsible for what happens in their sector, whether or not they personally participate.” (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). The report’s suggestion would have made ranking officers responsible for any instances of misconduct in their sector and gave them greater incentive to discourage police misconduct amongst the officers they command, helping to stem the pattern of misconduct from within the department as opposed to external investigations and prosecutions.
Not surprisingly, this idea was never put to practice, and in 1996 the special counsel to the Los Angeles Police Commission published a report finding that there had only been minimal progress towards reform in the department and that the progress observed was attributed only to the acts of dedicated individuals rather than a coordinated plan of effort (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). This proved that the department was incapable of policing itself and investigating bad conduct of its employees. As a result, there persisted records of instances where the LAPD used disproportionate force and seemingly illegal tactics against the public, and in most of cases the officers involved were only minimally reprimanded if at all.
An example of publicly viewed police misconduct was the shooting of Margaret Mitchell. Margaret Mitchell was an elderly, mentally ill African American, homeless women when she was shot and killed by an LAPD officer in front of 11 eye witnesses. The officers attempted to confiscate her grocery basket--which held all her belongings—for not having permission from the supermarket to take the basket. The police claim that she had a weapon in her hand, a screw driver, and that she threatened to kill them. She lunged and slashed at the male cop causing him to “fear for his life”. He fired one shot and killed Margaret Mitchell (L.A.—The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell). She was 5 foot 1, weighed 102 pounds and died at the age of 55 (Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting). Police officers are intensively trained to handle the most dangerous situations in their line of duty, and more importantly to act with appropriate force. This Officer reacted to an old woman threatening him with a screw driver by using lethal force. He shot and killed her with his department issued firearm, when that same department issues officers pepper spray, batons, and hand cuffs, yet the officer still maintained shooting was appropriate force in that situation. Even the public outcry that followed did nothing to bring the officer to justice. Officer Edward Larrigan was never charged, and Bernard Parks, police chief at the time of the shooting aggressively defended the decision by Officer Larrigan (“Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting”).
The officer’s actions against Margaret Mitchell and the LAPD’s subsequent response exemplified the lack of accountability in the department that had remained in tact even through the Christopher Commission Investigation. The department was still incapable of investigating its own employees and was aiding to the culture of police brutality. In even the most extreme cases where police have unlawfully killed suspects, officers are rarely held accountable for their actions within the department and under almost no circumstance are the officers ever criminally charged for their on-duty actions. This lack of discipline within the department perpetuates the amount of police misconduct against suspects and innocent civilians. If officers are able to avoid criminal charges in cases so egregious and blatantly excessive as the Rodney King beating or the Margaret Mitchell murder, there is nothing to stop officers from fearing punishment of less shocking instances of civil rights violations.
This practice of has continued with minor progress up until the present. In 2006 there were several videos posted on popular sites, such as youtube.com, showing blatant acts of police brutality by the LAPD captured on camera. 2 of the most popular videos showed Hollywood division officers beating suspects while they were detained on the ground. The first video shows officers repeatedly hitting an individual with their batons after the man has already been subdued on the ground. This occurred during a peaceful protest against a Minuteman march in July of 2006 (LAPD brutality targets immigrant rights movement). The next video shows two officers punching a suspect, William Cardenas, in the face while he is completely subdued on the ground by the officers in August of 2006. Unknown to the officers at the time, a civilian captures the police on camera beating William Cardenas while pinning him to the ground with a knee pressed against Cardenas’ neck, and the other officer sitting on his stomach (Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out).
The third, and possibly most shocking video exhibiting police brutality, happened on the campus of UCLA in a library. The University Campus Police Department, a division of the LAPD, tasered a civilian multiple times for refusing to leave the library. It was obvious that after the first or second time the person was tasered, he was unable to leave on his own power, but instead of carrying out the subdued suspect, they continued to taser him to try and force him to leave on his own power (UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell).
These acts that have shocked thousands on the internet are common tactics used by LAPD. Even capturing these instances on video, rarely lead to any action taken against the officers by neither the D.A. nor the Internal Affairs Department (IAD) of the LAPD. Civilian complaints of police brutality are overwhelmingly ignored because of the IAD procedure to give more weight to the accused officer’s story than to witness accounts. Most civilian complaints are even filed by the department on miscellaneous letterhead, making the allegation essentially non-existent because it is not an official document (California: Update on Police Brutality). Misconduct claims submitted by other officers are given more merit, but are rarely reported because of the officer “code of silence”, an unwritten code in the LAPD that disallows police to report misconduct of other officers (Feldmen). The 1997 report by a police task force on LAPD Rampart division Detective Mark Fuhrman provided insight into the code of silence when he informed the task force that his superiors knew that he and other officers committed misconducts, but chose not to investigate. The report stated that Det. Fuhrman “knew exactly where the disciplinary line was, and he avoided creating any significant pattern of misconduct” What this statement assumes is that there is a line of discipline that is not to be crossed in the department, but based on the record of Det. Fuhrman and other officers in the division, there was a high level of abuse permitted in the department by the officers before that line was ever reached.
The culture of excessive violence that has persisted through investigations, reports, and even public outcry has yet to be stemmed by any type of reform the department has implemented. There has no been significant change in the police department’s tactics and police misconduct claims from civilians have continued to rise, although payouts for civil suits have decreased compared to the 1990s. The only way to stop the systemic police brutality in the department is to create an external department responsible for policing the LAPD. Instead of submitting police misconduct claims through the very department the claim is against, the claims will be submitted directly to the judicial agency, and reviewed by an independent board with knowledge of police activities and procedures. The officers will be investigated wholly by the independent agency and subject to the disciplinary measures decided by the agency. By creating an agency not governed by the LAPD, it creates enough space to increase objectivity when dealing with officers, and will be able to give a fair determination of the facts without fear of officer bias. This system would also do better to protect officers that wish to break the ‘code of silence” because the officer will be able to submit a misconduct report anonymously to the agency without fear of being discovered and ostracized from the police community.
In order to promote internal reform as well, this agency would take the suggestion made by the Christopher Commission report 15 years ago and hold ranking officers responsible for systemic misconduct within their sectors, with the hope that the ranking members will pay closer attention to the conduct of the officers they govern discouraging widespread misconduct. The web of misconduct often spreads up to some of the highest ranking officers, if the judicial agency is able to expose some high ranking officials it may be able to disrupt the pattern that is firmly established in the department.
The Judicial committee will also work closely with the D.A. office to criminally prosecute officers for cases of criminal activity, as in the case with the officer who shot Margaret Mitchell. This will send a firm message to everyone within the police department that they will be held just as accountable as civilians for actions outside police protocol and end the stigma that police are above the law. What this policy will also achieve, is protection of the public from the police department. It is the duty of every officer in the LAPD to protect the public, but not at the expense of the public’s freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Far too long in Los Angeles, have many citizens had their civil rights violated in the name of public safety. This reform will restore a long absent trust in the LAPD in the Los Angeles community, even in minority communities who have historically conflicted with LAPD and have been victims to some of the most publicly egregious acts committed by LAPD. Holding officers to a high standard of accountability is the only way to ensure their duties will be performed in a manner that will protect as opposed to terrorizing the public.
It is clear that the history of the LAPD is among the worst in the country, and the present shows that we are still battling the same problems with little to no progress. What has led to the cities inability to rid the LAPD of corruption and police misconduct has been the city’s irrational faith in the LAPD to reform itself. There have been too many examples that show the police department has to be publicly forced to investigate its own officers in even the most obvious cases. It has been proven that even individual commitments from officers to reform the department is not enough to end the policy in the LAPD. There has to be an independent agency that will enforce accountability in the department, and restore nobility to being an officer. The decisions the officers make everyday on the streets, often times are the decisions between our lives and our deaths, and for that reason we must hold them to the highest accountability to perform their trained duties.
Works Cited
"California: Update on Police Brutality." Amnesty International; Working to Protect
Human Rights Worldwide. 01 September 1999. Amnesty International. 14 Feb 2007.
"Cooley's Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting." Metropolitan News-
Enterprise. 08 August 2001. Metropolitan News-Enterprise. 10 Feb 2007.
Feldmen, Charles. "Officer Breaks LAPD." CNN.com. 21 September 2000. CNN. 14 Feb
2007.
"L.A.--The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell." Revolutionary Worker. 13 June 1999.
Revolutionary Worker. 11 Feb 2007.
"LAPD Brutality Targets Immigrant Rights Movement." Act Now to Stop War and End
Racism. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007.
"Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out." CBS2.com. 13 November
2006. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007.
"Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States." Human
Rights Watch. June 1998. Human Rights Watch. 14 Feb 2007.
"UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell." Youtube.com. 15 November 2006. Youtube. 14 Feb 2007.
For many years, the LAPD has represented the worst aspects of what is wrong with police enforcement in the United States. It has a long history of insufficient training, police misconduct, evidence planting and vigilante apprehension tactics. Up until the 1990’s there was absolutely nothing being done about LAPD’s illegal activities, and only 2% of all claims of police misconduct were validated by the department (Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States). In most cases the officers participating in police misconduct were the same officers receiving promotions to higher ranking positions.
In 1991 it took the graphic video of the Rodney King beating to be seen worldwide, 54 deaths from rioting in South Los Angeles, and $700 million in damages for the city to finally take action against the LAPD. 4 months later, the Christopher Commission Report was created to conduct a full analysis of the complete structure and operation of the LAPD over a 5 year period. Like Los Angeles residents had known for years, the Christopher Commission Report found widespread evidence of systemic police brutality, a nearly non-existent disciplinary structure, and a “code of silence” that discouraged other officers from reporting police misconduct. Among other recommendations for department reform, the Commission report suggested the importance of a new form of Officer accountability. “Ugly incidents will not diminish until ranking officers know they will be held responsible for what happens in their sector, whether or not they personally participate.” (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). The report’s suggestion would have made ranking officers responsible for any instances of misconduct in their sector and gave them greater incentive to discourage police misconduct amongst the officers they command, helping to stem the pattern of misconduct from within the department as opposed to external investigations and prosecutions.
Not surprisingly, this idea was never put to practice, and in 1996 the special counsel to the Los Angeles Police Commission published a report finding that there had only been minimal progress towards reform in the department and that the progress observed was attributed only to the acts of dedicated individuals rather than a coordinated plan of effort (Shielded from justice: Police brutality and Accountability in the United States). This proved that the department was incapable of policing itself and investigating bad conduct of its employees. As a result, there persisted records of instances where the LAPD used disproportionate force and seemingly illegal tactics against the public, and in most of cases the officers involved were only minimally reprimanded if at all.
An example of publicly viewed police misconduct was the shooting of Margaret Mitchell. Margaret Mitchell was an elderly, mentally ill African American, homeless women when she was shot and killed by an LAPD officer in front of 11 eye witnesses. The officers attempted to confiscate her grocery basket--which held all her belongings—for not having permission from the supermarket to take the basket. The police claim that she had a weapon in her hand, a screw driver, and that she threatened to kill them. She lunged and slashed at the male cop causing him to “fear for his life”. He fired one shot and killed Margaret Mitchell (L.A.—The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell). She was 5 foot 1, weighed 102 pounds and died at the age of 55 (Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting). Police officers are intensively trained to handle the most dangerous situations in their line of duty, and more importantly to act with appropriate force. This Officer reacted to an old woman threatening him with a screw driver by using lethal force. He shot and killed her with his department issued firearm, when that same department issues officers pepper spray, batons, and hand cuffs, yet the officer still maintained shooting was appropriate force in that situation. Even the public outcry that followed did nothing to bring the officer to justice. Officer Edward Larrigan was never charged, and Bernard Parks, police chief at the time of the shooting aggressively defended the decision by Officer Larrigan (“Cooley’s Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting”).
The officer’s actions against Margaret Mitchell and the LAPD’s subsequent response exemplified the lack of accountability in the department that had remained in tact even through the Christopher Commission Investigation. The department was still incapable of investigating its own employees and was aiding to the culture of police brutality. In even the most extreme cases where police have unlawfully killed suspects, officers are rarely held accountable for their actions within the department and under almost no circumstance are the officers ever criminally charged for their on-duty actions. This lack of discipline within the department perpetuates the amount of police misconduct against suspects and innocent civilians. If officers are able to avoid criminal charges in cases so egregious and blatantly excessive as the Rodney King beating or the Margaret Mitchell murder, there is nothing to stop officers from fearing punishment of less shocking instances of civil rights violations.
This practice of has continued with minor progress up until the present. In 2006 there were several videos posted on popular sites, such as youtube.com, showing blatant acts of police brutality by the LAPD captured on camera. 2 of the most popular videos showed Hollywood division officers beating suspects while they were detained on the ground. The first video shows officers repeatedly hitting an individual with their batons after the man has already been subdued on the ground. This occurred during a peaceful protest against a Minuteman march in July of 2006 (LAPD brutality targets immigrant rights movement). The next video shows two officers punching a suspect, William Cardenas, in the face while he is completely subdued on the ground by the officers in August of 2006. Unknown to the officers at the time, a civilian captures the police on camera beating William Cardenas while pinning him to the ground with a knee pressed against Cardenas’ neck, and the other officer sitting on his stomach (Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out).
The third, and possibly most shocking video exhibiting police brutality, happened on the campus of UCLA in a library. The University Campus Police Department, a division of the LAPD, tasered a civilian multiple times for refusing to leave the library. It was obvious that after the first or second time the person was tasered, he was unable to leave on his own power, but instead of carrying out the subdued suspect, they continued to taser him to try and force him to leave on his own power (UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell).
These acts that have shocked thousands on the internet are common tactics used by LAPD. Even capturing these instances on video, rarely lead to any action taken against the officers by neither the D.A. nor the Internal Affairs Department (IAD) of the LAPD. Civilian complaints of police brutality are overwhelmingly ignored because of the IAD procedure to give more weight to the accused officer’s story than to witness accounts. Most civilian complaints are even filed by the department on miscellaneous letterhead, making the allegation essentially non-existent because it is not an official document (California: Update on Police Brutality). Misconduct claims submitted by other officers are given more merit, but are rarely reported because of the officer “code of silence”, an unwritten code in the LAPD that disallows police to report misconduct of other officers (Feldmen). The 1997 report by a police task force on LAPD Rampart division Detective Mark Fuhrman provided insight into the code of silence when he informed the task force that his superiors knew that he and other officers committed misconducts, but chose not to investigate. The report stated that Det. Fuhrman “knew exactly where the disciplinary line was, and he avoided creating any significant pattern of misconduct” What this statement assumes is that there is a line of discipline that is not to be crossed in the department, but based on the record of Det. Fuhrman and other officers in the division, there was a high level of abuse permitted in the department by the officers before that line was ever reached.
The culture of excessive violence that has persisted through investigations, reports, and even public outcry has yet to be stemmed by any type of reform the department has implemented. There has no been significant change in the police department’s tactics and police misconduct claims from civilians have continued to rise, although payouts for civil suits have decreased compared to the 1990s. The only way to stop the systemic police brutality in the department is to create an external department responsible for policing the LAPD. Instead of submitting police misconduct claims through the very department the claim is against, the claims will be submitted directly to the judicial agency, and reviewed by an independent board with knowledge of police activities and procedures. The officers will be investigated wholly by the independent agency and subject to the disciplinary measures decided by the agency. By creating an agency not governed by the LAPD, it creates enough space to increase objectivity when dealing with officers, and will be able to give a fair determination of the facts without fear of officer bias. This system would also do better to protect officers that wish to break the ‘code of silence” because the officer will be able to submit a misconduct report anonymously to the agency without fear of being discovered and ostracized from the police community.
In order to promote internal reform as well, this agency would take the suggestion made by the Christopher Commission report 15 years ago and hold ranking officers responsible for systemic misconduct within their sectors, with the hope that the ranking members will pay closer attention to the conduct of the officers they govern discouraging widespread misconduct. The web of misconduct often spreads up to some of the highest ranking officers, if the judicial agency is able to expose some high ranking officials it may be able to disrupt the pattern that is firmly established in the department.
The Judicial committee will also work closely with the D.A. office to criminally prosecute officers for cases of criminal activity, as in the case with the officer who shot Margaret Mitchell. This will send a firm message to everyone within the police department that they will be held just as accountable as civilians for actions outside police protocol and end the stigma that police are above the law. What this policy will also achieve, is protection of the public from the police department. It is the duty of every officer in the LAPD to protect the public, but not at the expense of the public’s freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Far too long in Los Angeles, have many citizens had their civil rights violated in the name of public safety. This reform will restore a long absent trust in the LAPD in the Los Angeles community, even in minority communities who have historically conflicted with LAPD and have been victims to some of the most publicly egregious acts committed by LAPD. Holding officers to a high standard of accountability is the only way to ensure their duties will be performed in a manner that will protect as opposed to terrorizing the public.
It is clear that the history of the LAPD is among the worst in the country, and the present shows that we are still battling the same problems with little to no progress. What has led to the cities inability to rid the LAPD of corruption and police misconduct has been the city’s irrational faith in the LAPD to reform itself. There have been too many examples that show the police department has to be publicly forced to investigate its own officers in even the most obvious cases. It has been proven that even individual commitments from officers to reform the department is not enough to end the policy in the LAPD. There has to be an independent agency that will enforce accountability in the department, and restore nobility to being an officer. The decisions the officers make everyday on the streets, often times are the decisions between our lives and our deaths, and for that reason we must hold them to the highest accountability to perform their trained duties.
Works Cited
"California: Update on Police Brutality." Amnesty International; Working to Protect
Human Rights Worldwide. 01 September 1999. Amnesty International. 14 Feb 2007
"Cooley's Office Declines to Charge Officer in Mitchell Shooting." Metropolitan News-
Enterprise. 08 August 2001. Metropolitan News-Enterprise. 10 Feb 2007
Feldmen, Charles. "Officer Breaks LAPD." CNN.com. 21 September 2000. CNN. 14 Feb
2007
"L.A.--The Police Murder of Margaret Mitchell." Revolutionary Worker. 13 June 1999.
Revolutionary Worker. 11 Feb 2007
"LAPD Brutality Targets Immigrant Rights Movement." Act Now to Stop War and End
Racism. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007
"Man Seen Being Punched By Cops On Tape, Speaks Out." CBS2.com. 13 November
2006. A.N.S.W.E.R.. 11 Feb 2007
"Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States." Human
Rights Watch. June 1998. Human Rights Watch. 14 Feb 2007
"UCLA Police Taser Student in Powell." Youtube.com. 15 November 2006. Youtube. 14 Feb 2007
