FAMILY OF UNARMED MAN KILLED BY DEPUTIES PETITIONS BELLFLOWER COUNCIL
By Greater Long Beach
The grieving family of 23-year-old Dexter J. Luckett, who was apparently unarmed when Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies shot and killed him in the parking behind his Bellflower apartment last month, is pleading with the City Council to “start an investigation.”
“We are tired of this,” said Bobby Watkins, Luckett’s stepfather, who was among a small contingent of family members, friends and legal representatives that addressed the Bellflower council during the public comment portion of its Monday (June 27) meeting. “We don’t want bloodshed. We want to live in peace.”
Deputies opened fire on Luckett at about 10 p.m. on June 16 while he was being detained in the parking lot—ordered to put his hands on the hood of a patrol car–in the 16100 block of Eucalyptus Ave. Luckett was hit by three bullets and died of those injuries at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center.
A Sheriff’s Department spokesperson said deputies came to the scene after someone phoned at 9:40 p.m. to report gunfire in the area.
“I hear the gunshot and I looked out the window and I see a lot of cops just running from where their cars were with guns,” Christine Juarez, a witness, told Zirana/Bellflower, an online news publication.
Steve Whitmore of the Sheriff’s Department told Zirana/Bellflower that deputies immediately spotted Luckett in the parking lot of what they did not know was the apartment complex where he lived and told him to put his hands on the patrol car hood.
“Apparently, he did that, and then quickly reached into his waistband,” Whitmore said. “Our deputies yelled again, ‘Put your hands on the radio car’ to control the situation. He began to do that again, but again reached for his waistband, but this time in the back.”
The deputies said they didn’t know if Luckett was reaching for a weapon, so they fired their guns. Besides the three bullets that killed Luckett, others left holes in the apartment wall.
“He did not deserve that,” said Alberta Maxwell, who was Luckett’s girlfriend.
Luckett’s supporters showed a TV news team where the incident occurred.
“He was in a corner—he can’t go nowhere this way, he can’t go nowhere that way,” Watkins said incredulously. “Why are you shooting this unarmed individual?”
The search for that answer and others is what brought Luckett’s supporters to the City Council meeting to request an investigation.
Although the City Council could not legally discuss the issue with them, Mayor Scott Larsen told them, “We are sorry for your loss. We can only hope and pray that something like this does not happen again.”
Larson told the Herald American that the council members “have been discussing this with the Sheriff’s Department.”
Watkins said the family has filed suit in Norwalk Superior Court alleging wrongful death, civil rights violations, assault and battery (by a deputy) and improper training and supervision of the deputy. Named in the suit is Deputy Daniel Mailloux. Watkins said the City of Bellflower and the Los Angeles County Fire Department will be added to the litigation, the latter for allegedly moving the body before the coroner came.
Whitmore of the Sheriff’s Department said that it does appear that Luckett was unarmed, and because this is a deputy-involved shooting and use of force, there will be four separate investigations.
“You’re going to have the homicide bureau investigating this, you’re going to have internal affairs looking at this,” he said. “Overseeing the internal affairs will be the office of independent review. The district attorney is also looking at this.”
No deputies were injured in this shooting and one suspect in custody.
READ MORE IN ZIRANA/BELLFLOWER AND THE HERALD AMERICAN
11 Comments
This is not Deputy Daniel Mailloux’s first law suit for violation of civil rights. In May of 2010 (below link), California District Court found Deputy Daniel Mailloux conducted racial profiling, use of excessive force and arrest with intent to discriminate against Adam Alarid on the basis of race or ethnicity. The court ruled Deputy Mailloux “violated his constitutional rights, and that his conduct was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of such rights.”
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2008cv07819/432019/
The question that should be asked is, WHY WAS DEPUTY MAILLOUX STILL WORKING FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT A YEAR LATER?
Why wasn’t Deputy Mailloux fired immediately following a court ruling that found he had violated a citizen’s constitutional rights? Isn’t the Sheriff’s Department negligent for not firing deputy Mailloux and preventing the possibility of another civil rights violation? How many civil rights violations must occur and how may people must Deputy Mailloux kill before he is terminated from his public safety position. What is that threshhold?
In my opinion, the Sheriff’s Department is hugely liable and should have its collective butt sued off for allowing Deputy Mailloux to continue to work after having been previously judged inadequate.
Long Beach City Hall and the Long Beach Police Department recently refused a judges order to release the names of officers involved in shootings. City Hall claims it is to protect the safety of officers involved. In reality, it is to hide the fact that the same officers are involved in multiple shootings over and over again. The public would be outraged if they knew how many of the same officers were involved in repeated shootings and civil rights violations.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/21/local/la-me-police-names-20110121
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-newton-police-secrecy-20110411,0,2762886.column?track=rss
Based upon the information available (which is by no means *all* of the information available), it is apparent that both Deputies Mailloux and Mayorga probably *should* have been dismissed following “Alarid.” One reason they may not have been could have more to do with our state constitution and county charter than anything else. These two documents allow for the creation and operation of civil service commissions.
Much as with the civil service commission in Long Beach, the county’s civil service commission can make legally binding rulings on matters of the employment, discipline and, termination of various county public employees, including sworn members of the sheriff’s department such as Mailloux and Mayorga.
It is quite possible that the Sheriff may have ordered Mailloux and Mayorga to be terminated at some point but that the deputies appealed to the county civil service commission and were able to have that decision overturned.
A quick perusal of just a few of the published minutes from the LA County Civil Service Commission will reveal dozens and dozens…and dozens…of cases in which various sworn and civilian county employees were seeking to appeal or had appealed various suspensions and terminations. In some cases the county department’s decision is upheld, in some cases not.
In *some* cases the Commission rules *against* the recommendations of its own hearing officers, even amidst the dissent-on-record of some of the appointed commissioners themselves.
http://search.co.la.ca.us/boscom/scripts/webresults.asp?Department=Civil_Service_Com&DocType=Minutes&URL=civilservice.lacountycommissions.info
Few issues related to peace officer employment and discipline are as cut and dried as Mr. Ruehle likes to believe that they are. Whether they *should* be more cut and dried is perhaps a debate for another time.
For better or worse, we, in California, have seen fit to enact a state constitution, a County Charter in Los Angeles and, through those, to create Civil Service Commissions and empower them to issue *final* rulings on matters of peace officer discipline and employment.
If a majority of us believe that *any* of those laws, regulations or entities needs to be changed, we have both the authority and the *responsibility* to change them.
Mr. Ruehle’s statement -that Long Beach City Hall and the Long Beach Police Department recently refused a judge’s order to release the names of officers involved in shootings- is patently false.
The very LA Times article from January 21, that Mr. Ruehle cites, directly refutes his own false comment. The article makes it clear that the POA (not the police department) would ask for a stay of Judge Madden’s order and then request a writ from the appellate court and that the city would join the POA in its requests.
This in no way constitutes a “refusal” of Judge Madden’s order and if Mr. Ruehle would care to be completely honest on this issue he should admit that this is so. I would recommend, however, that no one hold his or her breath waiting for any such admission from Mr. Ruehle.
Greet is a liar. The following are direct quotes from the article:
“A judge has ruled that the names of Long Beach police officers involved in shootings is public information, denying a request by the officers’ union that the city be barred from releasing their identities to The Times.”
“Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Patrick T. Madden refused to grant a preliminary injunction in a case filed by the Long Beach Police Officers Assn., which had argued that the officers’ names were protected personnel information and that releasing them would jeopardize officers’ safety.”
“James Trott, an attorney for the union, ….. said he would ask the court for a stay on Monday in order to seek a writ from the appellate courts.”
“City Atty. Robert Shannon said the city would join the union in its writ, saying he disagreed with the court.”
According to the article, Superior Court Judge Madden ruled the Police must release the names of Long Beach Police officers involved in shootings. The Police Union and THE CITY OF LONG BEACH then refused the judges order and appealed the judges decision to the next highest court.
Let me repeat……GREET IS A LIAR.
Mr. Ruehle is mistaken. Both about the meaning and import of the content of the article he is citing, and about his unfounded allegation concerning my honesty.
Mr. Ruehle is free to repeat his mistaken assertions and to type them all in caps all he likes but his doing so will not make him any less mistaken in these areas.
Judge Madden’s ruling is not the final word on this matter. Like all initial lower court rulings, it is subject to stays, appeals, and reversals, rights to which the POA and the City of Long Beach have chosen to pursue and avail themselves of.
Requesting a stay and seeking a writ of appeal *is* not -and *should* not be considered- a “refusal” of a judge’s order particularly in the context in which Mr. Ruehle has used it here. Once all legal challenges and appeals on this ruling have been exhausted, should the City continue to decline to release the names, it can then be considered a “refusal”…and would likely result in the City being held in contempt of court on this matter.
I rather doubt such a thing would ever occur but even if it does it would only come at some point in a future that Mr. Ruehle cannot possibly see unless he is somehow actually omniscient, rather than just routinely commenting as if he is.
Mr. Ruehle really should avoid making patently false statements on websites such as this but, again, I doubt anyone will be holding his or her breath waiting for that to happen.
John Greet is a recently retired Long Beach Cop. Need I say more.
Yes, Mr. Ruehle, if it is your desire to be believed then you certainly do need to say more. Supporting your comments, here, with objectively verifiable evidence would make all of the difference between their being seen as factual or the entirely fallacious hyperbole I believe that they are.
The truth is the truth, Mr. Ruehle. If what you said concerning Long Beach City Hall and the Long Beach Police Department’s response to Judge Madden’s ruling is true, then it should be easy enough for you to prove it.
So either prove it or admit that what you said was false.
Or keep doing what you have been…attempting to deflect attention from your two most recent falsehoods.
Fifteen days since Mr. Ruehle initially posted his false information here concerning the City Hall and LBPD.
Twelve days since I put him on clear notice that his information was false and challenged him to admit that it was false.
Seven days since I challenged Mr. Ruehle to either prove that his information is true or to admit that it was false.
But as is so often the case with Mr. Ruehle where either the truth or an admission of falsehood is concerned, the silence remains deafening.
21, 18 and 13 days respectively.
But as is so often the case with Mr. Ruehle where either the truth or an admission of falsehood is concerned, the silence remains deafening.
My wishes and prayers go out to the family and friends of Dexter J. Luckett. It is a shame that officers like Mailloux are still out there and allowed to patrol the streets. Upon finding out about this incident my heart immediately dropped knowing that this could have easily happened to me when i encountered Mailloux and Mayorga in the parking lot of the Artesia library. The best word i can think of to describe Mailloux is angry. He is truly a danger to the public and does not know how to properly control himself or his emotions. It is a shame that the officials whose job it is to protect the public are the ones who have become the people we need protection from. The most unfortunate thing is that 2 weeks before my incident at the library, Mailloux was deposed for another civil case which he was involded in and another young minority lost thier life from excessive police force. The victim suffocated after Mailloux hog tied him, leaving him on his stomache with Mailloux’s knee and weight being pushed into his back (and for those of you who have never seen Mailloux, he is easily over 200 pounds). In this case the victim was also unarmed. Mailloux should have been taken off the street and put behind bars immediately after this first incident. Unfortunately although Mailloux killed this innocent young man, the attorney paperwork did not make it clear to which of the responding officers involved in the suite did what actions, so we were unable to use the facts from this case when i was in court with him. During the depostion of my court case my lawyer asked Mailloux if he had previously been involved in any other civil cases and he responded yes but did not remember the specifics. I do not know about him but if I drilled my knee and weight into someones back causing them to suffocate, it would leave a lasting impression in my mind. It shows that either he was lying under oathe or has no remorse for his actions. The Los Angeles County Sherriffs Department desperately needs to weed out the corruption and I hope Mailloux is the first to go. When he was on the stand being questioned at my hearing he was losing his temper and growing angry in the presence of a supreme court judge, imagine what he acts like in the presence of no authority and has the help of the badge and a gun by his side. The department needs to take more pride into the officers they employ. Mailloux is a perfect example of the county taking criminals from off the street, giving them guns and putting them back on the street to harrass innocent civilians. Open your eyes Los Angeles County, you are endangering your own public everytime you send officers like Mailloux out on patrol.