Who really are the ‘good guys?’ Who are the courageous seekers of
justice? The ones fighting to right
wrongs? Is it those who are defending
actions of the police or the persons who are challenging the police? I’m sure many of you won’t like my choice…I
say it’s the members of the public who are fighting the uphill legal battle to
right wrongs!
It may be strategically correct from a
legal standpoint, but is it the right thing to do when the agency’s defense
team digs up dirt to tarnish the personal reputation of the public person
seeking a redress for what they believe is a governmental wrong? That was the case recently in Baltimore where a Federal judge blasts the City for trashing a plaintiff in a civil rights case.
http://www.wbaltv.com/i-team/Federal-judge-slams-Baltimore-Police-Department-over-abuse/19243228 Sometimes those protecting the pocketbook of government forget what impact
these types of tactics will have on the people in our communities who already
question our motives. So you win the
immediate court case; but have you won the eventual conflict in your
community. Challenging the facts of the
case is proper. But how far will you
allow your representatives to go to ‘win’ the case? It may be won in the darkened halls of the
courthouse; but will it be a win on the street corners, Starbucks, lunch wagons
and schools?
Three years ago during 2013 I was
involved in a civil case in Los Angeles.
A local, prominent businessman became involved in an incident with a
couple of LAPD officers and sustained very serious injuries to his face and
head. The officers contended he fell as
he ran from them. He alleged they beat
him with batons and fists. This
certainly is a rightful issue for litigation.
I became involved not in the use of
force incident, but in what occurred afterwards. His incident and serious injuries were
broadcast widely on TMZ…the scandal media source for Los Angeles. Then the LAPD began its systematic public and
private campaign to destroy this businessman’s personal and professional
life.
Central to the incident was one of the
officers involved in the contact/force encounter. Beginning in 2008 and continuing into 2011
there were numerous allegations that this officer, with another, engaged in
sexual misconduct with persons under their control, specifically
informants. In these types of cases
credibility is always a problem and vulnerable victims can be easily written
off, as they were in these incidents.
But during the civil litigation of the businessman, the LAPD languished
without movement against this one officer.
Was it purposeful? Was it a legal
strategy? Would the officer’s credibility
be adversely affected?
Between court rulings and the trial in
2014, on the underlying use of force issues, the businessman’s case was lost. His attorneys were not allowed to bring in
the evidence of the officer’s sexual misconduct. Now he’s struggling to rebuild his personal
and professional life. Today news surfaces about the involved officer…http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-officers-sexual-assault-20160217-story.html
This short news article scratches the surface
on the lumbering, bungling, bureaucratic handling of the administrative side of
the involved officer’s case. A large
agency, like the LAPD, can effectively keep an officer on ‘the beach’ or not
working for a long time without affecting day-to-day operations. But it was not until after the businessman’s
civil trial did the LAPD suspend and eventually terminate the officer for his
sexual misconduct.
Was this a conscious
decision to forestall the information on the sexual misconduct and the
officer’s credibility from being used against the City in the civil trial? I don’t know for certain, but I certainly
have my suspicions. Is it always right
to be right? Could there be more than
just one right? Are we in law enforcement
truly the ‘good guys’ riding the white horse searching for justice?
No comments:
Post a Comment