CITIZEN POLICE INVESTIGATOR SAYS HE WAS FIRED…FOR INVESTIGATING POLICE
By Dave Wielenga
A former investigator for the Long Beach Citizens Police Complaint Commission has filed a wide, detailed and potentially very damaging lawsuit—in money and in scandal—charging that high-ranking Long Beach city and police officials harassed and ultimately fired him for uncovering too much evidence of Long Beach Police Department misconduct and pointing out that a lopsided majority of complaints against officers by the poor and people of color were never investigated at all.
Tomas Gonzales, now 62, was officially fired by former City Manager Jerry Miller in the fall of 2005 after six years with the Citizens Police Complaint Commission (CPCC). But legal documents obtained by GreaterLongBeach.com in conjunction with KBEACH.org, the online radio station at Long Beach State, indicate that dissatisfaction with the results of his investigations was increasing among a growing number of senior city and police officials—including City Attorney Robert Shannon, now-former Police Chief Anthony Batts, Assistant City Manager Reggie Harrison and now-former CPCC Executive Director William Ward.
In his lawsuit, Gonzales describes harassment so intense and so varied that he claims violations of his civil rights in areas ranging from workplace retaliation and racial discrimination to violations of the Family Medical Leave Act and the Whistleblower’s Protection Act.
Trial has been set for June 13.
However, City Attorney Robert Shannon has filed legal notice that he will move for dismissal of Gonzales’ suit May 12, basically asserting that Gonzales has no grounds to sue.
“Plaintiff [Gonzales] was an at-will employee who could be terminated at anytime,” Shannon writes in his notice. “Plaintiff was hired as a part-time investigator to investigate claims within the auspices of the Citizen-Police Complaint Commission.”
The Citizens Police Complaint Commission was created by Long Beach voters in April 1990 when city officials either could not or would not take control of a Long Beach Police Department that appeared to be running amok.
Although the LBPD has always had a bit of a reputation for playing hardball, the 1980s featured a persistent parade of incidents in which officers’ misconduct ranged from bullying to violent to deadly. The Press-Telegram published an investigative series that laid bare an appalling situation in which many officers felt free to devise their tactics—seemingly any tactics—without regard for training, discipline or the law.
Eventually, the LBPD embarrassed Long Beach before the nation. Two of its offers were caught in a sting operation conducted by a pair off-duty law enforcement offers from outside the city and videotaped by NBC News.
Don Jackson, a Hawthorne police officer on administrative leave, and Jeff Hill, an off-duty federal corrections officer—both African-American—drove an old car into Long Beach on Saturday night. The television crew’s van followed.
As they motored along Pacific Coast Highway, the two were soon pulled over by a Long Beach police patrol car. They came to a stop outside a furniture store with a big showroom window.
Moments later, the tape shows LBPD officer Mark Dickey shove Jackson face-first into a plate glass window, shattering it, and then throw him onto the police car. The LBPD originally charged Jackson with the crime of obstructing a police officer, although the charge was dropped when the videotapes exonerated him.
The incident rallied the public to support some activists’ longtime calls that the police be subject to some sort of oversight by citizens.
On April 10, 1990, the Citizens Police Complaint Commission was bolted into the City Charter with 57 percent of the vote. It is composed of 11 members, one from each of Long Beach’s nine council districts, who are appointed by the mayor and approved by full council vote.
It’s mission? This is how Shannon, the city attorney, describes it in his recent court notice: “The CPCC was established to provide an independent investigative commission to receive, administer and investigate allegations of misconduct against Long Beach Police Officers. Specifically, CPCC is tasked to investigate allegations of excessive force, false arrest and complaints with racial or sexual overtones.”
However, the CPCC never came close to wielding the kind of power envisioned by its advocates. In 1992, when public support was still strong, the commission looked into more than 200 allegations of unnecessary or excessive force—but sustained only one.
According to a July 1993 story in the Los Angeles Times, civil rights experts already considered the CPCC one of the weaker citizen review panels in California. It was criticized for operating in secret, depending on the Police Department to investigate most claims, almost always siding with the police officer and never using its subpoena power.
Nearly 20 years later, the lawsuit Gonzales has filed is expected to expand and detail those shortcomings. He will describes a Citizens Police Complaint Commission that has been neutered by changes in by-laws that give most of the decision-making power to the executive director—these days, Anitra Dempsey—who answers to the city manager and a trend appointing commissioners and hiring investigators who either have personal backgrounds or close relatives in law enforcement.
However, Gonzales may first have to remind most people that Long Beach even has a Citizens Police Complaint Commission.
To hear extensive interview with Gonzales and CPCC executive director Anitra Dempsey that was conducted jointly by GreaterLongBeach.com and KBEACH.org, [CLICK HERE]. It can be downloaded as a podcast.
















104 Comments
As President of the Belmont Shore Residents Association, I was involved in three police misconduct complaints made to both the Long Beach Department of Internal Affairs and the Long Beach Citizens Police Complaint Commission (CPCC). All of the complaints were dismissed without a response. After several weeks, we had to call the CPCC to find that out because they otherwise would not have notified the complaintant.
One of the complaints was personal in nature because I was involved as a witness and also was mad enough to file a complaintant. For several weeks after the complaint was filed, I heard nothing. When I finally called the CPCC, I was told over the phone that a thorough investigation concluded no misconduct by the police officer. I asked how a thorough investigation could have been conducted when nobody from the CPCC ever talked to me to get my side of the story. I was one of the witnesses and one of the complaintants. When I talked to the other witnesses, they told me nobody from the CPCC had contacted them either. Fat good the CPCC does.
Why does the City of Long Beach continue to employ police officers found in court to have fabricated evidence in wrongful convictions?
Take for instance, McSherry v. City of Long Beach, case number: 06-55837. In 2009 it was determined in court that Long Beach Police Officers Norman C. Turley and Sergeant Carthel S. Roberson falsified and fabricated evidence in a rape case leading to a wrongful conviction of Leonard McSherry. After 14-years in prison, McSherry was exonerated by DNA evidence and a confession by the true perpetrator. The judge in the case granted immunity to Officers Turley and Roberson because they were police officers, but Long Beach taxpayers paid money to settle with Mr. McSherry. Neither officer was terminated. Both officer continued to work as Long Beach Police Officers.
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?d=39505&n=06-55837&s=CA
This was not an isolated incident. Long Beach police officer Carthel Roberson had previously been found to have falsified evidence in a case. In Venegas v. Roberson, case number No. 81-5696, (below link) Roberson and three fellow officers were found to have lied during a murder trial and coerced trial witnesses into giving false evidence against Venegas, resulting in him being imprisoned for 3-years. The city responded by promoting Officer Roberson to Sergeant.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/704/704.F2d.1144.81-5696.html
Why did the department continue to employ Officers Turley and Roberson until they retired with full disability pensions in 2010, even after they were found to have falsified evidence? Us taxpayers continue to pay these former officers for the rest of their lives.
Doesn’t this perpetuate policed misconduct? Why did the current city Council pay both settlements without question?
For those who contend this was an isolate incident, I suggest they consider the following similar cases that ALSO didn’t receive attention from the media
Man falsely imprisoned for 24 years because LBPD fabricated evidence paid $7.95 million by Long Beach taxpayers.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M_VjIA6_wDAJ:www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_15745948+%22long+beach%22+%247.95+million&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Long Beach Police Chief tells LA Times he was encouraged by Long Beach City Officials to NOT discipline his officers.
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-25/local/me-993_1_city-manager
LBPD shoot unarmed man 5 times while he is on the ground. The victim in this case was unarmed and mentally ill
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n4IbKZZkfIsJ:ourweekly.com/los-angeles/long-beach-police-shoot-unarmed-man+%22long+beach+police%22+%22excessive+force%22&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
(Per Donna Burns)
Dominick Scaccia testified that he ran out of options to subdue the 147 pound man and was compelled by fear of his own life to use deadly force
Every testament uttered by Scaccia was refuted by eye-witnesses, other people of color from Sue’s neighborhood. There were graphic images and video which family attorney, Joe Barrett and associates from the Cochran Law firm complied over the course of a year.
Barrett et al, built a surmountable trail of evidence against the Long Beach Police Department officer and presented a compelling fact-based case of police brutality to a jury of 6 whites and 6 minorities. The verdict returns against all odds.
In spite of the outcry of family and community, on Monday, June 15th, 2009 after 4 hours of deliberation, the jury ruled in favor of Dominick Scaccia. Scaccia is free to return to the street of Long Beach and is directly responsible for training new police officers fresh off the academy.
The Police Officers Association (POA) Union sued the City of Long Beach to allow Police Officers more latitude to use their guns and also allow officers involved in a shooting to talk with their attorney or union representative before filing a police report
http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/60942
Long Beach Police Department Officer reinstated after shooting unarmed man
http://www.gazettes.com/news/article_e88e423f-29bd-573e-bca0-dd9042a8da05.html
(Per Donna Burns)
In December 2004, Officer David Garcia was fired by the Long Beach Police Department in the wake of a controversial shooting of an unarmed man, 22-year-old Keyante Reed. According to the reports, Garcia shot Reed once after a lengthy foot chase, he died the next day. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office looked into the incident but cleared Garcia.
However, the review by the Long Beach Civil Service did not, saying that Garcia’s training called for him to take different steps. That commission called for Garcia’s dismissal, something supported by former LBPD Chief Anthony Batts.
Reed’s family sued the city in a case that was settled in the “six figure range,” according to Shannon. Garcia sued for reinstatement, and had the support of the Long Beach Police Officers Association in that suit. His attorneys brought in experts on use of force that backed what Garcia did as the right action.The court agreed.
Today, Garcia is back on the force. We, L.B. residents, once again paid out $ in the hundreds of thousands to the victim and re-hired the cop to go out on our streets and chase “bad guys”, unarmed bad guys some more…
Suspect dies in back of Long Beach Police cruiser after being beaten by officers
http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-869881/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmxhdGltZXMuY29tL35yL2xhdGltZXMvbmV3cy9sb2NhbC9+My8zMzQ1NTM0NzUvbGEtbWUtYnVyZ2xhcmRlYXRoMTQtMjAwOGp1bDE0LDAsMzE4MDMzNy5zdG9yeQ
Must read on one persons experience with the Long Beach Police Department
http://www.benballinger.me/lbpd-menace-society-part-one/
Useful history. I’d forgotten all about this incident:
“Eventually, the LBPD embarrassed Long Beach before the nation. Two of its offers were caught in a sting operation conducted by a pair off-duty law enforcement offers from outside the city and videotaped by NBC News.”
and knew little about the CPCC. Good work.
Two LBPD officers plead not- guilty to stealing weapons from the evidence locker last August.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/09/local/la-me-long-beach-police-20100810
These same officers later changed their plea to guilty.
http://www.presstelegram.com/crime/ci_17365890
This follows not long after the infamous 2006 audit of the Long Beach Police Department indicating more than a fourth of its shotguns and an unknown number of revolvers were unaccounted for. The reason the number of missing handguns was unknown is because there was NO inventory control for handguns.
According to the L. A. Times, the audit [in January 2006] that uncovered the missing shotguns also found the Long Beach Police department last inventoried its weapons in 1998. By contrast, the much larger Los Angeles Police Department checks its shotguns and other equipment at all 19 stations and the Police Academy every shift of every day, said spokesman Lt. Paul Vernon. The LAPD also inventories property, including its weapons, at each station twice a year. As for the missing revolvers, Owens [LBPD spokesperson] said the department does not keep a formal inventory of those weapons, so it will take time to determine where they are.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/13/local/me-shotguns13
It has to make one question how many unaccounted LBPD guns later ended up in the commission of a crime or murder.
Long Beach City coverup of domestic violence by Long Beach’s Chief of Police.
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2368
Speeding police officer kills mother of small children in cross walk going to work. The police lie and tell the media the woman jumped in front of the police car that had been traveling at the speed limit on Ocean Blvd.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7x4IySSn9x4J:articles.latimes.com/2006/oct/19/local/me-lbdead19+%22Kathryn+Stephens%22+%22long+beach%22+attorney&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The computer forensic expert hired by the city determined from the police car on-board computer that the police lied in their investigation. The officer’s car had been going at a high rate of speed (in excess of 60 mph) in the fog during early morning dark hours with neither his flashers or siren on. It was further revealed the offending police officer returned to work his next shift before the investigation had hardly commenced.
The City of Long Beach settled for $millions with the family of deceased woman mowed down by the negligent Long Beach police officer who still works for the department today. Anyone else would have been in prison.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Du16lUjOFE4J:www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/15363400-1.html+%22Kathryn+Stephens%22+%22long+beach%22+attorney+%22police+car%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Long Beach City Attorney and LBPD sue to withhold names of officers involved in shootings. Judge rules officers names are public information and must release names. City Attorney and LBPD file appeal to higher court to overrule Judges ruling:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E85FqL3–74J:articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/21/local/la-me-police-names-20110121+la+times+LBPD+withhold+names&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Everyone probably has heard about the recent Zerby case where a resident was shot and killed by police WITHOUT WARNING for having the bad luck of having a hose nozzle in his hand.
However, people may recall another recent Long Beach Police Officer involved shooting that nearly claimed the life of a man outside Legends in Belmont Shore. Similar to the Zerby case, the man was unarmed and intoxicated. Have a drink and risk being murdered by the cops.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hpWR6Y3c7kYJ:www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/2nd-Officer-Involved-Shooting-in-Long-Beach-Leaves-Suspect-Critical.html+belmont+shore+police+shooting+legends&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Having a hose nozzle in your hand is not the only reason to be shot and killed by a Long Beach Police Officer. Carrying a cell phone could also get you killed by the LBPD.
Here’s an article where a Long Beach Police officer fired 12 shots at an unarmed man running AWAY from them because they mistook a cell phone for a gun.
http://www.insidesocal.com/lbcrime/2010/03/long-beach-jury-rejects-claim-of-excessive-force-against-police-city.html
An acting Long Beach Police officer is arrested and convicted by the Los Angeles Police Department for conducting home invasion robberies.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/May/08-crt-378.html
I wonder if the City continues to pay him while he is currently in prison. Keep in mind, it took the LOS ANGELES Police Department to make that happen.
The Long Beach Police Department shoot a Los Angeles Police Department officer.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9HAjr7dED_cJ:laist.com/2008/07/30/long_beach_police_shoot_lapd_office.php+%22long+beach+police%22+%22brutality%22&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Long Beach Police Department officers beat woman on a bus who flipped them off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBU3Wo5rXH4&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Long Beach Police officer pleads guilty to felony gun charge
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_15868309
An on-TV account of the Long Beach Police Department shooting and killing a car chase suspect running away from them.
http://www.videolife.tk/video/s8GYEpqoBdo/Long-Beach-Police-officers-shoot-kill-suspect-on-live-TV.html
Acting Long Beach Police Captain John Stolpe is arrested by Griffith Park rangers for solictation and indecent exposure.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nxTPIkuTF70J:rangergord.blogspot.com/2007/09/park-ranger-vs-cop-john-stolpe-trial.html+john+stolpe+long+beach&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Long Beach settles anarchist rally suit for Long Beach Police Department excessive force
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RQ4Qy2Ak8CEJ:news.infoshop.org/article.php%3Fstory%3D20081204110727642+%22long+beach+police%22+%22excessive+force%22&cd=32&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
The Long Beach Police Department must pay victim in excess force law suit.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bLR7SrmGJAkJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1232808.html+%22long+beach+police%22+%22excessive+force%22&cd=33&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
The City of Long Beach again pays settlement for excessive force by Long Beach Police Department.
http://longbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=465298&GUID=C434FB1B-E531-4AE1-B802-962C651E01A7&Options=&Search=
The City of Long Beach agrees to $650,000 settlement in police brutality law suit but do not admit fault on the part of the Long Beach Police Department.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eI7zCTL0Bv0J:articles.latimes.com/1992-08-08/local/me-4729_1_long-beach+%22long+beach+police%22+%22brutality%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
A person mysteriously dies while in Long Beach Police Department Custody.
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_15450301?source=rss
A SECOND PERSON dies mysteriously while in Long Beach Police Department custody.
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-21/news/hl-1783_1_long-beach
The first question many of us should be asking is why are Long Beach Police Officers found to have committed misconduct not fired from the Department? Not only were they not fired. In some cases, they were promoted, which only acts to provide incentive to other officers to conduct themselves similarly. This is reoccurring and pervasive misconduct on the part of city employees that is repeatedly allowed. I have absolutely no faith our city government is taking care of business.
The next question that should be asked is why hasn’t our City Council done anything about it? Almost every one of these cases of police misconduct resulted in a huge settlement to the person harmed. ALL of those settlements had to be approved by the Mayor, City Attorney and City Council. The settlements are decided at city council meetings, but are done so on the consent callendar in order to hide the circumstances from the public who does not have an opportunity to see the facts.
Yet our elected representatives do have the ability to see the facts of each case and choose to do nothing to change the city’s coverup culture, hence forcing me to become more vocal about their shortcomings.
These are two questions that taxpaying residents should certainly be asking their elected representatives. I know I have and have been shut down each time. The culture will NOT change until more voices begin asking these questions.
Wow, Mike. You have really done some amazing research. Now I understand why you can be so vitriolic on this topic.
It’s funny seeing all these incidents listed like this. I remember all of them that were in the news. Put them all together like this and it does make one stop and question what is going on.
A couple poped out at me as excessive use of force: the 147 pound man…seriously that is not much bigger than myself! How much force would one need to subdue an average sized woman? and the other incident I found rather chilling was two cops beating up a woman for flipping them off. I have taught my kids to ignore flip offs, so beating someone that strikes me as a terribly immature thing to do.
People with power and guns need to be held higher standards than the rest of us.
Why after 24 hours are many of my comments STILL AWAITING MODERATION?
Ms. LB: I suggest that it is precisely Mr. Ruehle’s consistent vitriol on any topic involving our city government and our public safety personnelv that serves to work against him. If he could find a way to be more balanced in his treatment of both, and less insulting in his dealing with those who happen to disagree with him, more people might take more of his comments more seriously.
Greet, you have no idea of the number of years I tried working nicely with Long Beach Building & Planning, Development Services, Police Department, Events Department, Planning Commission, BS Parking Commission, Department of Health and City Councilman BEFORE I became President of the Belmont Shore Residents Association (BSRA). When I was REPEATEDLY IGNORED, I tried to generate more leverage for change by becoming elected twice as BSRA President. After my first term as BSRA President, I realized being nice and accepting the city ignoring me and lying to me was getting me nowhere fast. Hence, I’ve changed my strategy to become more aggressive.
I do have respect for SOME city employees and elected representatives who have always been straight with me. I may not have liked what they told me. However, they didn’t lie to me. The ONLY person I can say that about from the Police Department is Cmd Levy. If you want, I can provide you a LONG list of Long Beach Police Department Officers who have lied to me in the past and the circumstances of each lie. I’ve documented and asked each for an explanation beginning with Cmd Quach when he was in the East Division years ago.
Greet, you don’t know anything about me and my history. In my opinion, you are just a biased recently retired Long Beach Cop who supports his Cop brothers no matter what lives are lost and how much it costs us taxpayers.
Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – How Long Beach’s CPCC Works
Policing the Police
Posted: Mar 09, 2009 5:12 PM PDT
By: Nicole Garcia
Fresno, CA – According to a grand jury report, Fresno is the largest city in California that does not have some form of a citizen review board for their police department.
Now, after an amateur video was released last month showing a Fresno police officer punching 52-year-old Glen Beaty while taking him into custody, public outcry for an independent auditor is louder than ever.
As the city of Fresno prepares to roll out their plans for a community advisory panel KMPH took a look at the City of Long Beach, which has what is called, the Citizen Police Complaint Commission.
It’s their version of an independent police auditor, and it functions in a similar way the city of Fresno envisions the Community Advisory Panel would work.
Long Beach and Fresno do have a few things in common. For one, they’re similar in size and population, and now they share a similar controversy.
The CPCC was born after video of a violent arrest by a Long Beach police officer made national headlines.
In 1989, a video showing a Long Beach police officer apparently pushing a man through a glass store window which shatters, sparked calls in that community for a police review board.
The city of Long Beach has about 1,100 officers on their streets, Fresno has about 800 officers.
“We receive numerous complaints regarding excessive use of force, and the commission has sustained some complaints, which means they found those allegations to be true,” says Anitra Dempsey, the executive director of CPCC.
When a complaint against an officer is filed with the CPCC, it’s first turned over to the police department’s internal affairs to be investigated.
“We then take a second look at what they’ve done, if we have additional questions, we may ask for an officer to be re-interviewed, we may ask for supporting documents, and we’ll make a recommendation,” explains Dempsey.
In the end, it’s the Long Beach City Manager, who decides whether an officer should be disciplined, re-trained, counseled, terminated, or if there is not enough evidence to sustain the claim.
“It’s created a checks and balance, they review our work, analyze it, they have the ability to go out and do investigations, and at times, it enhances our investigation… sometimes we’ll have difficulty getting a hold of witnesses or citizens who don’t want to talk to the police,” says Commander Rich Meyer, who heads the long beach police department’s Internal Affairs bureau.
“Quite honestly it has validated the integrity of our investigations, it’s gone a long way in increasing public trust and confidence,” said Cmdr. Meyer.
Some in Fresno who are opposed to an independent police auditor, have voiced concerns that it would inhibit proactive policing.
In Long Beach, officers say that has not happened.
“I think the management, the chiefs at the time recognized that it was a step toward transparency. In any industry when you have somebody looking over your shoulder monitoring what you’re doing, there is some apprehension, but from day one, the police department was very supportive,” said Cmdr. Meyer.
The cost of Long Beach’s Citizen Police Complaint Commission to taxpayers is about $400,000 a year.
Everyone involved… the city of Long Beach, the police department, and the CPCC itself say public trust and confidence cannot be measured by numbers, but they all agree- their citizen review board has contributed to increasing trust and confidence residents have in their city government.
(Source: “Policing the Police” by Nicole Garcia – Posted Mar 09, 2009. KMPH News (Fox 26) Fresno, Ca. – http://www.kmph.com)
I’m sure they had good reason to fire this gentleman. He was even hired amidst an “at will” policy….welcome to the real world Mr. Gonzales!
CORRECTION OF PREVIOUS SLOPPY AND INCOMPLETE POST. SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:
Fresno, CA – According to a grand jury report, Fresno is the largest city in California that does not have some form of a citizen review board for their police department
.
Now, after an amateur video was released last month showing a Fresno police officer punching 52-year-old Glen Beaty while taking him into custody, public outcry for an independent auditor is louder than ever.
As the city of Fresno prepares to roll out their plans for a community advisory panel KMPH took a look at the City of Long Beach, which has what is called, the Citizen Police Complaint Commission.
It’s their version of an independent police auditor, and it functions in a similar way the city of Fresno envisions the Community Advisory Panel would work.
Long Beach and Fresno do have a few things in common. For one, they’re similar in size and population, and now they share a similar controversy.
The CPCC was born after video of a violent arrest by a Long Beach police officer made national headlines.
In 1989, a video showing a Long Beach police officer apparently pushing a man through a glass store window which shatters, sparked calls in that community for a police review board.
The city of Long Beach has about 1,100 officers on their streets, Fresno has about 800 officers.
“We receive numerous complaints regarding excessive use of force, and the commission has sustained some complaints, which means they found those allegations to be true,” says Anitra Dempsey, the executive director of CPCC.
When a complaint against an officer is filed with the CPCC, it’s first turned over to the police department’s internal affairs to be investigated.
“We then take a second look at what they’ve done, if we have additional questions, we may ask for an officer to be re-interviewed, we may ask for supporting documents, and we’ll make a recommendation,” explains Dempsey.
Eleven commissioners – all volunteers who go through a screening process and are selected by the mayor’s office – meet once a month to review cases.
They are trained in police policy and procedures.
“We’re not advocates for police, we’re not advocates for the community, we’re simple fact finders,” said Dempsey.
They employ two part-time private investigators.
“Those dispositions are then forwarded to the city manager who receives both internal affair recommendations as well as CPCC recommendation, and he has the ultimate authority on recommending a disposition on the case,” said Dempsey.
In the end, it’s the Long Beach City Manager, who decides whether an officer should be disciplined, re-trained, counseled, terminated, or if there is not enough evidence to sustain the claim.
“It’s created a checks and balance, they review our work, analyze it, they have the ability to go out and do investigations, and at times, it enhances our investigation… sometimes we’ll have difficulty getting a hold of witnesses or citizens who don’t want to talk to the police,” says Commander Rich Meyer, who heads the long beach police department’s Internal Affairs bureau.
“Quite honestly it has validated the integrity of our investigations, it’s gone a long way in increasing public trust and confidence,” said Cmdr. Meyer.
Some in Fresno who are opposed to an independent police auditor, have voiced concerns that it would inhibit proactive policing.
In Long Beach, officers say that has not happened.
“I think the management, the chiefs at the time recognized that it was a step toward transparency. In any industry when you have somebody looking over your shoulder monitoring what you’re doing, there is some apprehension, but from day one, the police department was very supportive,” said Cmdr. Meyer.
The cost of Long Beach’s Citizen Police Complaint Commission to taxpayers is about $400,000 a year.
Everyone involved… the city of Long Beach, the police department, and the CPCC itself say public trust and confidence cannot be measured by numbers, but they all agree- their citizen review board has contributed to increasing trust and confidence residents have in their city government.
Mr. Ruehle: So how is this “more aggressive” strategy of yours working out for you?
John:
When Mike talks about being nice for years trying to resolve an issue, I believe him all the way. In fact City Council Members have told Tom and I to speak more politely at the Council Meetings and we would make more progress. Since I am a woman, I will refrain from using any foul language to challenge that idea. We all know City Hall does what they want and they are willing to walk all over anyone who challenges them. Anything you try to bring forward is completely ignored, whether it is correct information or not. The PT had a good comment today in their Editorial, when they say the ‘smart ones’ voted to move forward with a study of street sweeping services.
According to the City Charter, a police officer can NOT serve as a Commissioner on the CPCC. Yet, Anitra Dempsey, a long time officer in the Long Beach Police Department, now oversees the entire CPCC as the Executive Director. It is a terrible conflict of interest for a former Long Beach Cop to decide which police misconduct cases are to be investigated. The CPCC is supposed to be a Citizen oversight commission, not a City controlled oversight commission.
If you want to be concerned about the CPCC oversight of Long Beach misconduct, listen to the KBEACH.org podcast to hear interviews with Mr. Gonzales and CPCC Executive Director Anitra Dempsey. According to Ms. Dempsey, there is NO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS of police misconduct as intended when the Citizens Police Complaint Commission was formed. According to Ms. Dempsey, the CPCC no longer does its own independent investigation. Instead, the CPCC NOW relies on the Long Beach Police Department Internal Affairs to determine whether a citizen’s complaint has merit.
When questioned about this inherent conflict of interest, Ms Dempsey responded by saying the Commission was “relying on the IA officers proffesional integrity.” If the Police Department’s internal affairs proffessional integrity was above reproach, there would not be a need for the CPCC.
Upon filing his complaint against the CPCC and the City of Long Beach, Mr. Gonzales was arrested and handcuffed at his home (outside of Long Beach) by Long Beach Police Officers as a form of intimidation. He was later released with no charges filed. Hear Mr. Gonzales tell his story on the KBEACH.org podcast at the link at the end of above story.
Kathy and Mike are right. They, the city officials, want,”nice polite talk.” That is fine, but when they lie to the public and do the things that many of them do, they do not deserve our respect. More people need to come up and tell them like it is, so the public can see past the lies. That is their point of not even having the public referring to people by their name, such as saying the Councilperson from the 5th District instead of Gerri Schipski did this or that. Whoops. That is Councilperson Gerri Schipski. Not nasty, but let’s just tell them what we think. The public is not in a mood to be,”nice” IMHO.
Mike, thank you. That is incredable research and some good reading. The public has no idea. Our local printed news media is too often engaged in cover up and fluff. Not only about the cops, but the pensions, the spot zoning, Schroder Hall, the double dealing by councilmembers that claim to be neighborhood advocates, etc. The Seal Beach Patch was a good suggestion you made for a media forum to tell it like we see it in Long Beach. More the better.
@ Kathy: I get that people get frustrated, but the best, most efficient and most effective way to voice that frustration is at the ballot box. Resorting to insults only puts people on the defensive and nothing constructive can come from a dialog where one or more of the participants are respectively insulting and defensive.
Mr. Ruehle often takes the city and the police department to task for attempting to skew public perception, yet he does the *very same thing* though his unfortunate habit of misstating facts and posting a litany of links that illustrate tragic examples of things a small percentage of police officers and former police officers have done, and saying virtually nothing about the many good and great things that the vast majority of other police officers and former police officers do and have done.
Mr. Ruehle makes it clear that he dislikes LBPD as an organization and wants us to contract out our policing services. So every single chance he gets he turns an article on cites like these into LBPD-bashing free-for-alls.
It is tiresome. It is predictable. And it is thoroughly counter-productive.
“However, the CPCC never came close to wielding the kind of power envisioned by its advocates. In 1992, when public support was still strong, the commission looked into more than 200 allegations of unnecessary or excessive force—but sustained only one.”
I am not certain that this conclusion reasonably follows from that data. Wouldn’t a better guage of the CPCC’s “power” be the number of competent investigations conducted, rather than the number of sustained dispositions delivered? Are we looking for a competent, effective, and independent investigative body, or a kangaroo court, wherein its effectiveness is only judged by how many “guilty” verdicts it delivers?
Is it not just as important to exonerate officers when allegations are false, as it is to sustain allegations when officers have abused their authority?
Perhaps an independent audit of the CPCC’s activities and investigations is in order. Regardless of the outcome of Mr. Gonzales’ lawsuit, it is to be hoped that such an audit will be forthcoming and, if challenges are independently verified, that they can be addressed quickly and decisively.
John, does it seem likely that only 1/2 of 1% of that many allegations would be justified? What would be the probability of that, I wonder?
Pan: The probability is actually quite high. Over 26 years I conducted preliminary investigations of thousands of citizen complaint allegations and perhaps 3% of them -over all of that time- had any merit. Keep in mind that as a department supervisor I was charged with accepting *every* formal complaint that a person desired to file, whether or not what they were alleging constituted, in my opinion, a violation of policy. Keep in mind that I was also charged with with forwarding *all* such complaints to Internal Affairs, whether I felt the allegations had any merit or not, and then to document that I had done so.
I can say with absolute certainty, based upon direct knowledge, that the police department takes *every* formal allegation of officer misconduct extremely seriously. Whether the same can also be said for the CPCC is a question about which I have no such direct knowledge.
The LA Times published an article today (below link) identifying Long Beach as a city where police unions are waging campaigns to protect their members from legitimate public accountability in shootings by preventing the release of names of officers involved in shootings.
In recent cases, “police unions have argued that the names of officers involved in shootings should be withheld from the public, even when their police chiefs have said they believe the public should be informed.”
However, this is not the case in Long Beach where City Council has directed City Attorney Shannon to expend taxpayers money to file law suits WITH the police union (POA) to withhold the names of officers involved in shootings.
“That officers are named in lawsuits or involved in shootings in no way suggests that they are guilty of anything. They are entitled to every presumption of innocence. But when a police officer shoots a suspect, the public is entitled to know that the officer acted properly and within the law, and that investigators will treat it as they would any other case. That is a public right, not a union privilege.”
Long Beach City Hall should not be spending our taxpayer’s dollars filing law suits at the bidding of the police union to protect the names of police officers involved in a shooting.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-newton-police-secrecy-20110411,0,2762886.column?track=rss
.
The LA Times article is interesting and informative. I think it might be helpful to keep in mind that it is an opinion piece and not hard news. This is important because opinion pieces allow their authors to go beyond simply reporting factual information and take considerable license to slant and flavor the information according to their own personal biases.
This can be a challenge sometimes because such opinion pieces are then used to support and strengthen the clear biases of others, much as Mr. Ruehle has sought to do here.
I would argue that a police union’s desire to temporarily withhold the names of officers involved in shootings is not necessarily evidence that these organizations seek to “protect their members from legitimate public accountability.” There are many ways to assure that our police force remains accountable to us.
We elect people from each of our Council Districts to our City Council to help us hold all government operations more accountable to us, including that of policing.
Even though the names of officers involved in shootings may not be released to the general public, to the best of my knowledge they are always made known to our elected City Councilmembers as well as to our elected Mayor, our elected City Attorney and our elected City Prosecutor. All of these people have been elected to local government office to represent the interests of the general public in Long Beach. If the general public does not believe these representatives are doing their jobs in this area, perhaps their problem should be more with their elected government officials, and less with the police union.
There are sometimes very good reasons for not releasing the names of officers inviolved in shootings. Reasons that have to do with the personal safety of both the officers and their families.
Mr. Newton has every right to hold the opinion that this concern is unwarranted and to seek to dismiss it, and Mr. Ruehle has every right to rely upon Mr. Newton’s opinion to attempt to support and strengthen his own.
But the LA Times article is an opinion piece, as is Mr. Ruehle’s comment linking to the article, and readers would be wise to remember this.
So says recently retired Long Beach Police Officer John B. Greet. This is the same guy who says I have a “clear bias.”
Mr. Ruehle, you said:
“According to the City Charter, a police officer can NOT serve as a Commissioner on the CPCC. Yet, Anitra Dempsey, a long time officer in the Long Beach Police Department, now oversees the entire CPCC as the Executive Director. It is a terrible conflict of interest for a former Long Beach Cop to decide which police misconduct cases are to be investigated. The CPCC is supposed to be a Citizen oversight commission, not a City controlled oversight commission.”
Your statement is false, twice over. Ms. Dempsey is not now and never has been a police officer, in Long Beach or anywhere else. She makes this quite clear in her radio interview.
Ms. Dempsey *has* been a police department employee in the past, but never served as a police officer, and my reading of our City Charter reveals *no* prohibition that prevents Ms. Dempsey from serving on the CPCC or, for that matter, that would serve to prevent *any* police department employee, sworn or civilian, from serving on the commission.
Ms. Dempsey served as this community’s first ever Human Dignity Coordinator. She has served our entire community well and faithfully in various capacities for many, many years. For you to allege that Ms. Dempsey is somehow in violation of our City Charter by serving as the current CPCC Executive Director is insulting and I think you should retract these false assertions as soon as possible.
The Beachcomber is taking the following survey:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
84% of the 73 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of murder by the Long Beach Police.
Greet, work on your comprehension skills would you please.
I said Anitra Dempsey was a long time “OFFICER” in the Long Beach Police Department. I did not say she was a “sworn officer,” a distiction you seem incapable of understanding.
Anitra Dempsey was an employee and officer in the Long Beach Police Department for 9 years much like Jackie Bezart, who was the department’s public information “OFFICER” before joining the the department’s ranks as a sworn officer (below link).
http://www.lbpost.com/news/allison/11162
The point is there is a conflict of interest for Ms. Dempsey, who was an employee of the Long Beach Police Department for many years, to oversee and direct CPCC investigations. Greet, I don’t really care whether you or anyone else finds my comment insulting.
“Mike Ruehle
April 11, 2011
So says recently retired Long Beach Police Officer John B. Greet. This is the same guy who says I have a “clear bias.”
My God, Ruehle, no bias any more clear than yours.
Ruehle, you called her a Long Beach cop. What else would anyone who read that think? You’re caught uninformed yet again and you’re seriously going to say you never said “sworn”?
Mr. Ruehle: Despite your clumsy attempt to evade personal responsibility for your false statements, you have failed.
To the best of my knowledge -and I stand more than willing to be corrected on this- at no time during Ms. Dempsey’s employment with the police department did *any* of her titles include the term “officer.”
Further, if in stating only “officer” in the title you ascribed to Ms. Dempsey, you specifically intended to differentiate her position from that of a sworn officer, why in the balance of the very same comment, do you use the phrases, “police officer” and “Long Beach Cop?”
No, Mr. Ruehle, I think you either intended to falsely claim that Ms. Dempsey had been a police officer, or you intentionally sought to mislead readers into believing that she had been. This interpretation is reasonable, given the manner in which you chose to construct the entirety of the comment I quoted.
Either way I believe you were being deceptive and intentionally so.
But set that little bit of blatant duplicity aside for a moment, you also said: ““According to the City Charter, a police officer can NOT serve as a Commissioner on the CPCC.” This, too, is false. You either *knew* it was false or you *should* have known it was false.
Beyond these it remains true that for you to allege, or even through duplicity to imply, that Ms. Dempsey is somehow in violation of our City Charter by serving as the current CPCC Executive Director is insulting. Ms. Dempsey is a fine person and an excellent example of public and community service at its finest and she deserves far better than the shabby treatment you have given her here.
I believe your comments here are false, and those that are not intentionally false are blatantly duplicitous and intentionally misleading.
If you have one shred of decency and intellectual honesty you will retract these comments. If you do not do so, and if, instead, you persist in your weak excuse-making, I think this will demonstrate far more about the true nature of your own character than that of Ms. Dempsey’s.
According to the national association, the definition of “citizen on patrol” (COP) appears to be pretty broad. I’ve attached a link to the National Association if you would like to read further on it.
http://www.nacop.org/whatarecop.htm
According to the web site, ‘Citizens On Patrol are Citizens who, after being screened, background checked, and trained by their local law enforcement agency, patrol their communities acting as “Eyes and Ears” for law enforcement. Citizens On Patrol are also referred to as “Citizen Observer Patrols”, “Community Action Patrols”, “Police Auxiliary Citizens Team”, “Retired Senior Volunteer Patrol”, “Volunteers In Policing”, “Volunteers On Patrol”, as well as other names.’
I figured a former Long Beach Cop would know all of this stuff.
So shred of decency then?
Any intellectual honesty? Yes? No?
Mr. Ruehle’s comments that I quoted were either intentionally misleading, intentionally false, or both. I have proved this to be the case and asked him to retract them. He has failed to do so offering deflection, distraction, and dissembling instead.
Very well.
Through his erroneous and misleading and (I believe) intentionally false comments, Mr. Ruehle clearly demonstrates his preferred approach to debate and discussion. He is not content to let the facts speak for themselves. He must manipulate them, slant them, and employ intentionally duplicitous language to support his positions.
When caught at it, and offered a reasonable opportunity to retract, he fails to do so. I hope others see his approach to debate and discussion for precisely what it is…intentionally deceitful and unncessarily desparaging of a most excellent, conscientious and incredibly moral public and community servant.
Normally when Mr. Ruehle plays his duplicitous rhetorical games I can tolerate them well enough, but in this case he has simply gone too far. I very much hope other GLB readers finally begin to see Mr. Ruehle’s debate and discussion style for the insulting, duplicitous, and deceitful pile of tripe that I believe most of it to be.
Along with Crumbles, Long Beach Police Officer Greet claims all of my arguments are a “deceitful pile of tripe” because my classification of a former 9-year employee of the Long Beach Police Department as an “Officer,” “sworn officer” or COP is inaccurate and not up to the standards GLB reader should expect. Nothing like taking the argument on a tangent to avoid the point.
The POINT is there is a terrible conflict of interest for Anitra Dempsey, a 9-year employee of the Long Beach Police Department, to be the Executive Director of the CPCC, a Citizen Oversight Commission. In no way should she be granted authority to decide which police misconduct cases are to be investigated.
Anitra Dempsey was the city’s first ever Human Dignity Coordinator, human dignity being a concept entirely lost on Mike Ruehle. Out of nowhere, he decides to defame someone without one scintilla of evidence, and calls into question her ability to do her job, merely because she once worked for the Police Department.
Ruehle, as Greet said, has gone too far here. Reckless comments ona message board are one thing, libeling someone knowing it isn’t true is actionable. Dempsey is not a public figure and has not sought the spotlight. She is NOT fair game for someone like Ruehle to impugn without recourse, much less any proof. If there’s a moderator here, some thought should be given to deleting Ruehle’s garbage here as it relates to Anitra Dempsey. It’s one thing for him to go on his endless rants about theLBPD or any other thing that strikes his fancy, but to purposely take on an individual without cause is quite another.
Earlier, when I pointed out that Mr. Ruehle’s comments were false, he suggested that I work on my comprehension skills. Yet he seems to have a considerable amount of difficulty in comprehending the difference between my characterization of what I believe to be “most” of his “debate and discussion style” (what I actually said) and what he falsely alleges that I claimed about “all” of his “arguments.”
His comments as I quoted them remain false and he still refuses to acknowledge that they were false, despite my having proven clearly that they were. This is not “taking the argument on a tangent”, as he alleges.
To support his position, Mr. Ruehle made comments that were false. I called him on the false nature of his comments, proved that they were false, and asked him to retract them and he continues to refuse to do so.
Now -still without admitting his comments were false- he refers to Ms. Dempsey as having been a police department “employee.” Why the change Mr. Ruehle? If your comments were not false, why suddenly change Ms. Dempsey’s title? And if they were false, why not have the basic integrity to just admit it and move on?
I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that “(a)ccording to the City Charter, a police officer can NOT serve as a Commissioner on the CPCC.” Please, Mr. Ruehle, either cite that section in the Charter for us or admit that your comment was, and remains, false. This should not be a difficult thing. So why do you continue to refuse?
I strongly disagree with your point that Ms. Dempsey’s service on the CPCC represents a conflict of interest. She was not a police department employee when she was appointed to her current CPCC position, she worked in Community Development as the City’s first Human Dignity Coordinator.
Having worked within the police department and then running the city’s human dignity program for several years seems, to me, an *ideal* balance and background for a person who is being considered for the CPCC Executive Directorship.
Perhaps that is *precisely* why she was selected for the position.
But you see it as a conflict of interest. And offer false information to support your position. Under the circumstances, I hope some might see why I would consider Ms. Dempsey’s experience and qualifications to carry far more weight than your anti PD agenda-driven falsehoods.
But you just keep deflecting and obfuscating on this, Mr. Ruehle. The more you do so, the more obviously insulting, duplicitous, and deceitful most of your debate and discussion style becomes.
Below is a link to a 1990 LA times article indicating the Police and Fire Department grouped together in the original formation of the CPCC:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WiJ1LvZlNe8J:articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/news/hl-2605_1_review-board+CITIZEN+POLICE+COMPLAINT+COMMISSION+1990&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Well golly, a 21 year old article. You’re really bringing out the big guns now. Still don’t have the courage to apologize to Anitra Dempsey though, eh?
More deflecting and dissembling. And still no admission that your comment that I quoted was false. I find this very sad, Mr. Ruehle.
Your article is interesting, but it does not seem to state what you claim. Perhaps you should review it again without allowing your preconceptions and biases to intrude upon your…what was it you called it earlier? Ah, yes, your “comprehension skills.”
Regardless of Ms. Dempsey’s qualifications or conflicts of interest, it would seem that someone needs to investigate these claims of police misconduct. Isn’t anyone concerned about the real issue besides Mike Reuhle?
Judges, commissioner and elected leaders are entrusted with making impartial decisions for society. These same individuals are required by law to recuse themselves from making decisions that may cause the appearance of corruption.
Similarly, how is the public to trust Anitra Dempsey can make impartial decisions as Executive Directory of the Citizens Police Complaint Commission (CPCC) on cases involving police officers she knew and worked closely with for 9-years as an employee of the Long Beach Police Department? In light of the Police Departments tendency to cover-up police misconduct, how is this situation NOT CORRUPT?
It was this same tendency by the Police Department to cover-up police misconduct which led to the creation of the CPCC in 1990, a decision fought hard by both the Fire Department and Police Department.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WiJ1LvZlNe8J:articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/news/hl-2605_1_review-board+CITIZEN+POLICE+COMPLAINT+COMMISSION+1990&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Currently, the CPCC is described by both Anitra Dempsey and the Police Department and as “working well together.” That is a clear sign of a relationship that has grown too cozy.
I suspect you seldom hear someone say they are “working well together” with their IRS auditor. The reason is each person has far different interests. Similarly, the CPCC’s interest as a Citizen’s oversight organization has the appearance of being corrupted by a Director who shares the same interests as the Police Department she is asked to investigate.
The City’s decision to put a person in charge of overseeing misconduct of their former long-time employer is unethical. Ms. Dempsey should be removed from her position as CPCC Director and replaced with someone the public can trust to represent their interests and not the interests of Ms. Dempsey’s former employer.
Ms. LB: Many people are concerned about this issue, they just do not choose to use false imformation to try to make their points. When people like Mr. Ruehle resort to blatant flasehoods and duplicitous language to try to convince others of their positions, they severely undermine their own positions. Why should we be interested in Mr. Ruehle’s concern that the CPCC cannot be trusted to be unbiased, when Mr. Ruehle himself is blatantly biased, duplicitous and deceptive?
Ms. Dempsey’s conduct and effectiveness in fulfilling her duties as CPCC Executive Director should be based upon just that, her own professional conduct and effectiveness in the position, and not upon Mr Ruehle’s unfounded personal perceptions, his falsehoods, or his duplicitous and intentionally misleading comments.
It is the opinions of the elected officials in our city who approved Ms. Dempsey’s appointment to her current position that should be considered far more significant and pertinent than those of someone like Mr. Ruehle, who cannot even muster the personal integrity sufficient to acknowledge his own blatant falsehoods.
Is there any Councilmember whose opinions on this matter you feel you can trust, Ms. LB? I respectfully suggest that you ask him or her. See what he or she has to say, and how he or she says it, and then compare and contrast that with Mr. Ruehle’s often insulting, duplicitous, and deceitful style of debate and discussion.
And Mr. Ruehle’s duplicitous and deceitful beat goes on…
Yesterday (4/11), Mr. Ruehle posted a link to a 1990 LA times story that he claimed indicated “the Police and Fire Department grouped together in the original formation of the CPCC.” The article does *not* indicate that. I told him the article does *not* indicate that. And yet today (4/12) Mr. Ruehle has re-posted the very same article, stating: “…the creation of the CPCC in 1990, a decision fought hard by both the Fire Department and Police Department.” Like his other false posting, this information is also false.
There is not one single word in this article that Mr. Ruehle has now linked *twice* that describes either “the Police and Fire Department grouped together in the original formation of the CPCC” or that “…the creation of the CPCC in 1990 (was) a decision fought hard by both the Fire Department and Police Department.” Not one single word.
In fact, on page 3 of the article Mr. Ruehle has now linked twice, we read that: “The list of endorsers (to the creation of the CPCC) includes some 25 organizations and various prominent leaders. They include *the Police Officers Assn*., the League of Women Voters, the Concerned Clergy of Long Beach, the Long Beach Bar Assn., the Teachers Assn. of Long Beach, a couple of homeowner associations and various other groups that represent blacks, Latinos and women, among others.”
There is *no* comment in this article from *any* person speaking on behalf of the police department *and* the police officers association was listed as an *endorser* of the formation of the CPCC.
Through linking this article the first time, Mr. Ruehle employed still more duplicity and offered still more false information in an attempt to support his position.
Through linking this article a second time *after* he was placed on clear notice that it did not describe what he claimed, I think he is *intentionally* posting false information.
What other reasonable conclusion can we possibly draw here? Mr. Ruehle found the article and posted it, twice. He is a bright and intelligent fellow so we must assume that he read the article and understood its contents.
He made a conscious choice to misrepresent what the article describes and, when put on notice that what he said was inaccurate, he attempted to mislead readers in the very same manner once again the very next day!
At what point do we stop ignoring Mr. Ruehle’s duplicity and excusing his falsehoods because, well, gee, he’s concerned about the real issue, so it is ok?
Come on, people….THINK!
As usual, Greet and Crum are wrong on both counts. Anitra Dempsey was the city’s Human Dignity Officer, not “coordinator”. Furthermore, Ms. Dempsey did not serve our community well as Greet states. She was demoted (fired) from her job as Human Dignity Officer after she completely mishandled the Bixby Knolls Halloween beating case.
Anitra Dempsey showed a complete bias in favor of the perps and even misquoted hate crime laws in order to make her case. I think the quote that did her in was when she stated the Reginald Denny beating was not a hate crime. She even argued the point with the Chairman of the Human Relations Commission. Bill Pearl from LBReport covered this issue at the below link.
http://www.lbreport.com/news/nov06/humdig.htm
The Long Beach Citizen’s Police Complaint Commission (CPCC) is a body created to allow for Citizen Oversight of the Long Beach Police Department. Over time, CPCC control has been taken over by City Officials close to the Chief of Police and Police Association.
The attached youtube video contains interviews with current and former CPCC employees, where you’ll find how the City Manager and City Attorney Shannon (who has been fighting the battle FOR Police Brutality against citizens for years) are behind this change from CPCC founding documents.
In summary is there is no oversight of the Long Beach Police and that is why they feel free to harass and abuse and even kill citizens, and we pay them to do so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaKPZwG4j8c
More deflecting and dissembling. And still no admission that Mr. Ruehle’s comment that I quoted was false. I find this very sad. I find it sadder still that so many still seem so enamored of and willingly duped by Mr. Ruehle’s persistent falsehoods and blatant misdirections and deflections.
Mr. Ruehle continues his habit of heaping falsehood upon falsehood in an attempt to support his positions. The official title of the position Ms. Dempsey held was *and remains* “Human Dignity Coordinator.” This is easily confirmed by simply going to the city’s Human Dignity Program website and reading the official title of Ms. Teresa Gomez, the person who currently holds this position.
Now, I could be mistaken, but I rather think the Community Development Department knows very well what the correct title is for the person who runs its own Human Dignity Program. I believe Councilwoman Gabelich may have once referred to Ms. Dempsey as the City’s Human Dignity “Officer,” but her comment was not accurate in that regard.
In any case this was nothing more than a deflection and distraction on Mr. Ruehle’s part because it has zero to do with the fact that Ms. Dempsey never served as an officer, sworn or civilian, for the *police department* as he claimed previously and falsely. Please note that he will not now refer to Ms. Dempsey as having been an officer, because I think he knows very well that his prior information on that topic was false. He will not admit that it was false, but it was, in fact, false.
Further, he persists in making false comments concerning the co-involvement of the police and fire departments during the CPCC’s creation. His comments on that topic are *also* false and he knows them to be false because I told him yesterday that they were false. Yet today he repeated his false assertions on that topic both here and on another forum.
Mr. Ruehle seems to be experiencing a good deal of difficulty in separating fact from falsehood and he seems to have *little* difficulty whatsoever in posting, and re-posting blatantly false comments both here and elsewhere.
Hey Mike Ruehle, as long as we’re digging up old newspaper articles, are you off probation yet for your own drunk driving conviction?
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/14/local/me-belmont-shore14
Yes, my 3-years of probation was completed last year. My DUI occurred 4-years ago. That was a terrible mistake I will not repeat. I’m not sure how my questioning of police misconduct makes me a hypocrite. But thanks for your concern.
I hope the comments of recently retired Long beach Police Officer John Greet demonstrate the typical City Hall and the Police Department response to anyone who questions their conduct.
For those of you who wonder whether recently retired Long Beach Police Officer John Greets knows something about what he is talking about, I suggest you read the comments at the below link where Daryl Supernaw (the author of an article) calls Greet on his frequent BS.
Bottom line, Mr. Supernaw responds to Greet by saying, “Mr. Greet, virtually everything stated in your postings is false.” And then he explained why.
http://www.lbreport.com/11ops/daryl/movie.htm
Mr. Ruehle again seeks to deflect from the topic at hand and his own personal responsibility for knowingly posting false information on this topic here and elsewhere.
In the exchange Mr. Ruehle has linked I made some mistakes of fact. I freely admitted to having done so and I wrote to Mr. Supernaw, directly, to apologize for my errors.
None of this, of course, has anyhing to do with the topic at hand and the fact that Mr. Ruehle has knowingly posted false and misleading information here and elsewhere. Rather than simply assume personal responsibility for this and admit that some of his comments were false and then retract them, he, instead, has chosen to repeat them, to add to them with additional false comments, and spend his time linking other articles, on other topics, in which I committed some factual errors of my own, admitted to, and sincerely apologized for.
What a pity.
For the record, I do not believe Mr. Ruehle’s past challenges with driving under the influence have any place in this discussion. He made a mistake, he got caught, and he paid the penalty prescribed under the law. He claims to have learned his lesson in that regard and I have no reason to doubt him.
Greet was it you who told the press-telerag about Mr. Ruehle’s DUI?
LBLover: No, as I said above I do not believe Mr. Ruehle’s past challenges with driving under the influence have any place in this discussion. He made a mistake, he got caught, and he paid the penalty prescribed under the law. He claims to have learned his lesson in that regard and I have no reason to doubt him.
I am far more interested in Mr. Ruehle’s consistent habit of intentionally and repeatedly posting false and misleading information, here and elsewhere, in efforts to support his positions. Mr. Ruehle’s own challenges with DUI are really of little interest to me unless/until they recur.
Though John Greet CLAIMS he wasn’t the person who told the press-telerag about my DUI, Long Beach Police Officer (at the time) John B. Greet was THE FIRST to provide the details of my DUI arrest record (date, time, speed I was traveling, blood alcohol content) to the comment section of EVERY media outlet available. Greet made sure to slant my two year old (at the time) DUI in the worst light possible.
Greet likes to portray himself as this benevolent, reasonable person to those who may not know the history. To me, Greet is an entirely different person and the epitomy of what is wrong with the Long Beach Police Department. Lie and mislead the public is their MO.
Mr. Ruehle offers *zero* proof that I was the person who disclosed his DUI arrest to the Press Telegram. He *offers* none because he *has* none, because I did *not* do so. If Mr. Ruehle has any proof that I did so he should produce it or cease his baseless accusations.
Further, if Mr. Ruehle has any proof of his allegation that I “was THE FIRST to provide the details of (his) DUI arrest record (date, time, speed (he) was traveling, blood alcohol content) to the comment section of EVERY media outlet available” or that I “made sure to slant (his) two year old (at the time) DUI in the worst light possible.” He should likewise produce that.
I honestly do not recall but I do not believe this allegation to be true. I am, however, *fully prepared* to admit to doing these things if he is able to provide proof that I did so.
Let’s all wait and see which choices he makes, here. I think they will prove extremely instructive for GLB readers. If he chooses to remain silent in the face of these challenges, I think that choice will tell a tale all its own.
Reproducing the links to the articles proving you are a liar is more difficult since the PressTelegram switched from Topix to Facebook and the District Weekly is no longer available on-line. I started putting my response together and then decided I’m wasting way toooooo much time doing so.
Anyone who has been following this thread for the last two years knows you are a liar and a hypocrite regarding YOUR past comments on my 4-year old DUI. I guess its understandable considering your training as a Long Beach Cop.
In Mr. Ruehle’s response we see clear and irrefutable evidence of his propensity to lodge baseless allegations against others for which he either cannot or will not offer proof.
Under similar circumstances, a more reasonable person would hold his or her tongue rather than have it proven -yet again- that he or she has developed a most unfortunate habit of intentionally posting false and misleading information about others in an attempt to support his or her own severely biased positions.
Throughout the comment thread of just this one article, Mr. Ruehle has intentionally posted false information on at least three specific occasions. When asked to either prove his comments or acknowledge and retract his false statements, he has failed to do so. Three separate times. Choosing, instead, to ridicule, offer insult and continue to lodge completely unfounded allegations for which he either cannot or will not offer proof.
And this is a recurring theme of Mr. Ruehle’s throughout almost every single article upon which he chooses to comment, either here or elsewhere.
Mr. Ruehle’s style of debate and discussion is not constructive, it is corrosive. It is not productive, it is petulent. It resolves little and unnecessarily complicates much.
I applaud Mr. Ruehle’s sense of civic activism, but I do not applaud his deceitful and misleading methods. He need not have resorted to them. The many links he researched and posted should have more than spoken for themselves and would have, had he not sunk to the rhetorical depths that he chose to afterward.
So much to offer…and so very poorly provided.
What a pity, Mr. Ruehle. What a pity and a waste.
Greet I remember you posting some stuff, which is why I called you on what I believe you did. You are a piece of dung, and THAT is very easy for all to see; they don’t even need to read Supernaw’s post, the one in which he verbally slaps the smirk off your face, but it IS a good time for certain.
It’s bad enough to know that we are footing the bill for your huge monthly check but then you shove it to us with your BS and complete the job. Go away.
Hi LBLover: As mentioned, some of my information during my LBR discussion with Mr. Supernaw was inaccurate. Some, but not all. Inaccuracies I openly acknowledged and personally apologized for. But you need to look at the bigger picture here. Whenever I call Mr. Ruehle on his habit of posting *intentional* falsehoods and misleading comments, he gleefully posts the *ONE LINK* to which you refer, as if it somehow serves as evidence that I commit the same sorts of commentary fraud that he routinely does. I do not do so. I have never done so, and I challenge you, Mr. Ruehle, or anyone else to offer proof that I have done so.
I sometimes get my facts wrong. So does Mr. Ruehle. So do we all. This is human and it is expected from time to time. It is good that this sometimes occurs because it allows us all to learn more of the facts about the topic at hand.
But no one else other than Mr. Ruehle -who I am aware of- consistently posts comments that he knows to be false, consistently misrepresents factual information, and consistently seeks to mislead readers on sites like these in efforts to persuade others of his positions.
To my mind there is a *huge* difference between being occasionally inaccurate and being occasionally (and intentionally) deceiving. I believe Mr. Ruehle routinely dances back and forth across the bright bold line between the two and from now on, whenever he does so, I intend to call him on it.
The problem with being “inaccurate” when you are a cop is that someone might die. It’s a lot different than being “inaccurate” when you make comments online.
Ms. LB: This is very, very true. And a cop who proves “inaccurate” in his or her judgments while handling a call is often the person who does the dying and suffering the injuries. Here’s some data that few people seem interested in considering during conversations like this:
-Between 1792 and 2009 almost 19,000 local, state and federal police officers have died in the line of duty, an average of 87.5 cops each year
-Between 2000 and 2009 the top cause of law enforcement deaths (by almost 100) was gunfire
-Between 1850 (when California became a state) and 2009, California ranked second in the nation in total law enforcement deaths, trailing Texas by only 92 officer deaths during that time
-Between 2000 and 2009 a total of 1,626 officers died, 588,205 were assaulted and 160,405 were injured in the line of duty
-Police officer deaths by gunfire have spiked 59% in just the past year
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/
588,205 assaults on police officers, nationwide, in 10 years. That is an average of 1,611 assaults on police officers *every single day* through the United States.
So, yes, Ms. LB, when a cop is inaccurate in the field someone most certainly might die or suffer injury, and it is very often the cop.
Meanwhile, when people like Mr. Ruehle are occasionally (and intentionally) deceiving and misleading when posting public comments, particularly in efforts to bash our police department and impugn and denigrate the vast majority of our police officers -who risk so much, every single day, in the jobs they do fo us- I tend to take considerable exception.
And from now on I intend to call Mr. Ruehle on his dishonesty every…single…time he chooses to resort to it.
** +quick correction+ on the assaults per day: Should have been 161 assaults per day v. 1,611. Sorry…ten-keying a little too fast there.**
The City Charter states, “To thereafter make recommendations concerning allegations of misconduct to the City Manager, who shall have final disciplinary authority”
It appears the City Manager has final authority AND he is the immediate supervisor (BOSS) of the Chief of Police.
So much for Independent.
hi tonia uranga,
Would you agree that the city’s Civil Service Commission operates outside of the direct authority of the City Manager?
Would you agree that the Civil Service Commission has charter-mandated authority to adjudicate appeals, subpoena and require the attendance of witnesses and the production of any documents pertinent to any Commission investigation or appeal, and to administer oaths to such witnesses, enforce and remedy violation of Commission rules, and make final decisions in any matter properly brought before it, in the absence of action to the contrary by the City Council?
Would you agree that according to the City Charter, no employee in the classified service shall be suspended, discharged or reduced in classification for disciplinary reasons until the employee has been presented with the reasons for such action specifically stated in writing and that the employee shall have the right to appeal such action to the Commission in accordance with the procedures specified in its rules?
If all of the above is true, is it really accurate to say that the City Manager truly does have “final disciplinary authority” at all times and in all cases?
Mr. Greet constructs like an IA investigator. He often appears to go on a tangent in the other direction. First, he wants to deflect the issue of police misconduct to another person’s past, and then he answers a germane point with a switch to the Civil Service Commission. As far as I can see from past posts, this discussion has been zeroing in on the possible corruption of the CPCC, the City Manager and many of his staff. Mr. Greet has done everything in his power to derail this discussion by railing about side issues. If he is in fact a police officer, he is carrying on the tradition of the POA by actively attempting to confuse the citizenry by confounding the issue. This forum is not the shadowy back room of Internal Affairs, which contrives scenarios to explain officer misconduct, under the color of law.
Mr. Greet also appears to be struggling to rescue the tarnished image of our police force by presenting rhetoric designed to cast doubts on the messengers who are attempting to lay bare the shortcomings of our less than honest oversight mechanism, and our heretofore best. If he and other obvious apologists for our band of bad boys wants to defend their misanthrope actions, they should know that the truth will handcuff the underhanded prevaricators no matter where they are hiding, and bring them before the upstanding citizens of our great city to be judged.
All of the political power of the POA, or their hired minions, cannot hijack or derail the light of day by utilizing the pulpit of law enforcement to fain infallibility and genuineness in order to twist the truth. It is in this chaos that they feel most comfortable. Thankfully, it is not all police officers or elected officials who are thusly inclined. It is our faith in justice that maintains our hope of one day openly greeting the truth.
Wow, “Oliver”, so many baseless allegations and misleading inferences, yet so little time to offer a complete and respectful response.
“Oliver” apparently has no clear or facually-based idea of the true duties and responsibilities of IA investigators. Such employees are just as dedicated to uncovering and presenting exacerbating information concerning misconduct allegations, and to present those to department administrators, as they are to uncover and present information of the more mitigating sort.
To my knowledge, I have never (as “Oliver” implies) tried to “deflect the issue of police misconduct to another person’s past.” Not once. Ever. This seems to be an inference to Mr. Ruehle’s past personal challenges with DUI. I never brought that up here and when it was brought up I made it clear that I did not think it had *any* proper place in the conversation.
“Oliver” states: “As far as I can see from past posts, this discussion has been zeroing in on the possible corruption of the CPCC, the City Manager and many of his staff. Mr. Greet has done everything in his power to derail this discussion by railing about side issues.”
When Mr. Ruehle -or anyone else- knowingly and repeatedly posts false and misleading information in support of his contention that the CPCC, the City Manager, or any other person or entity is corrupt, such information cannot reasonably be dismissed as mere “side issues” nor can seeking to refute such information reasonably be considered either a “derailment” or an attempt to “confuse the citizenry by confounding the issue.” In fact, it is a sincere attempt to clear away the clutter of knowingly false and misleading information so that readers can evaluate the *truth* of a matter, pro and con, absent the knowing falsehoods and blatant misdirections some seek to publish here and elsewhere.
LBPD’s reputation is by no means “tarnished.” This is false. Some, like Mr. Ruehle and others, certainly seek to accomplishment that goal, but I beleive they consistently fail to do so. Where officer misconduct is alleged, LBPD thoroughly investigates it -every single time and in writing- as mandated by both law and department policy. In severe circumstances, other agencies also investigate these allegations. The results of these investigations are subject to considerable scrutiny, if not by the general public, then by their duly-elected representatives in government. Some, like Mr. Ruehle and others, are sometimes unhappy with the results of these investigations, when they can bother themselves to actually await the results, that is. When they are unhappy, they have every right to appeal the findings, demand independent review, and even seek standing to file civil suits of their own.
They also have a right to publish intentionally false and misleading comments and hurl baseless and unproven allegations about on public sites such as these. This right they exercise *frequently.* But I do not believe that approach to be either constructive or productive and it certainly does not serve to tarnish anyone’s reputation but their own. Nor should such rhetorical silliness ever go unanswered. so sometimes I choose to answer.
I have no “pulpit”, law enforcement-derived or otherwise. Nor do I seek to “hijack or derail the light of day” to any degree whatsoever. “Oliver” will find no greater critic of police officer misconduct than me (the actual sort, not the sort that is merely alleged and never proven.)
But, unlike some others here, I am just as intolerant of those who knowingly post false, fraudulent, deceptive, and duplicitous information in blatant attempts to mislead others in support of their positions.
Does that about cover it, “Oliver”?
Greet frequently claims people “will find no greater critic of police officer misconduct than me.” However, I have posted cases, officer’s names, officer convictions, etc and have yet to see a critical word posted by Greet. All we hear is Greet justifying police misconduct.
Every time Greet makes this statement, I provide Greet with the names Officer Turley and Officer Roberson. Each time, Greet avoids addressing the below questions I have repeatedly posed to him.
Officer Turley was found in court to have lied and fabricated evidence causing an innocent person to be sent to prison. Officer Roberson was TWICE found in court to have lied and fabricated evidence sending two innocent person to prison. Not once, but TWICE. Different cases. Different falsely imprisoned people.
In each instance, the innocent people sued the City of Long Beach and the offending officers upon release from prison. In each case, the judge granted these officers immunity from prosecution because they were cops. In each instance, the City of Long Beach paid Mega $millions of taxpayers money in settlement.
In each instance, the City of Long Beach continued to employ those officers in the Police Department until they retired with full disability pensions in 2010. Nobody knows how many other innocent people were sent to jail because the Long Beach Police Department retained these men as officers.
The two questions are:
1. How does the Police Department justify continued employment of officers such as Turley and Roberson who were found in a court of law to have lied, fabricated evidence and coerced witnesses?
2. For someone claiming to be the greatest critic of police misconduct, where was the voice of Long Beach Police Officer (at the time) John B. Greet during and after the outcome of these court cases in 2009?
I pose these names and these two questions everytime Greet pumps himself up as the GREATEST POLICE MISCONDUCT CRITIC. Everytime, Greet fails to address, let alone answer the questions. Let’s see what happens this time.
I routinely state on this site and others that I do not condone officer misconduct, that I do not believe public safety personnel who are convicted of misdemeanor or felony crimes should retain their jobs, that I believe *all* public safety personnel should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct both on and off-duty, and that I believe the police department could benefit from some administrative changes.
This is apparently not sufficient or specific enough for Mr. Ruehle, who persists in seeking to have me answer, personally, for personnel decisions made well above my pay grade while I was still employed at LBPD.
Mr. Ruehle is just going to have to get used to disappointment. Much as I have while continuing to wait patiently for him to acknowledge and retract statements he has posted here and elsewhere that he knew to be false and intentionally misleading.
While I have no personal knowledge of this, I have a strong suspicion that there may be far more to some of the examples Mr. Ruehle cites than he has either discovered or, if he has, that he is interested in sharing with readers.
I *can* say with complete certainty that there have been several times during my career during which department administration has imposed strict disciplinary measures upon department employees, including suspensions without pay, demotions in rank, and terminations, only to have some of those decisions appealed to the Civil Service Commission and the discipline either reduced or reversed altogether.
This is precisely why I brought up that issue in response to poster “tonia uranga,” who also seems of the mind that CPCC, the City Manager and the Chief of Police and the department he runs are all somehow corrupt. Despite what the Charter might state in that poster’s example, the Charter *also* provides authority to the Civil Service Commission to hear appeals of certain levels of discipline from classified employees and to “make *final* decisions in any matter properly brought before it.” (emphasis added)
As much as Mr. Ruehle and some others would like to lay all these examples at the feet of the City Manager, department administrators and the CPCC, the fact is that none of those entities has the final word on matters of police department discipline in all cases.
This truth may prove a bit too inconvenient for Mr. Ruehle to accept, but it remains truth nonetheless.
Greet, you addressed all of the worlds problems except for the two questions I asked. Let me repeat:
1. How does the Police Department justify continued employment of officers such as Turley and Roberson who were found in a court of law to have lied, fabricated evidence and coerced witnesses?
2. For someone claiming to be the greatest critic of police misconduct, where was the voice of Long Beach Police Officer (at the time) John B. Greet during and after the outcome of these court cases in 2009?
2nd try: “Mr. Ruehle is just going to have to get used to disappointment. Much as I have while continuing to wait patiently for him to acknowledge and retract statements he has posted here and elsewhere that he knew to be false and intentionally misleading.”
I feel content that I have made my case here. I have clearly demonstrated, several times in the comment thread of this one article, that Mr. Ruehle intentionally posts false and misleading information in efforts to support his positions. He adopts these duplicitous and dishonest tactics here, as well as on other sites which are also discussing the same topics.
I want to personally apologize to Mr. W for taking up so much space on this comment thread to prove these points but I think they were very necessary. Mr. Ruehle is one of our city government’s biggest critics and most persistent gadflies and for that he has my sincere respect. But his methods of persuasion are often dishonest and intentionally misleading and I think readers deserve to know this about anyone who comments here or elsewhere.
I sincerely hope that if Mr. Gonzales was treated improperly or unlawfully during his time with the CPCC, that he is able to prevail in his lawsuit.
Greet, you addressed all of the worlds problems except for the two questions Mike Ruehle asked:
1. How does the Police Department justify continued employment of officers such as Turley and Roberson who were found in a court of law to have lied, fabricated evidence and coerced witnesses?
2. For someone claiming to be the greatest critic of police misconduct, where was the voice of Long Beach Police Officer (at the time) John B. Greet during and after the outcome of these court cases in 2009?
So much for Greets claim to be the GREATEST CRITIC OF POLICE MISCONDUCT.
Greet must have mispoke. Rather than claiming people “will find no greater critic of police officer misconduct than me,” Greet probably meant to say “people will find no greater SUPPORTER of CONTINUED police officer misconduct than me.”
That appears to be the case based upon Greets enthusiastic and angry defense of any mention of police misconduct.
Nepotism In Police Departments Puts Public Safety At Risk
http://www.ctnow.com/news/connecticut/hartford/hc-ubinas-nepotism0410-20110410,0,3517018.column
I would argue that nepotism in police departments *can* put public safety at risk as this article clearly illustrates. When nepotism does put public safety at risk, we have access to legal remedies to that challenge, as I think this article *also* clearly illustrates.
Because a community can also greatly *benefit* from positive aspects of nepotism (also referred to as patronage) we should avoid blanket prohibitions against this practice. LBPD, at least, does appear to have some restrictions in this area and these may, in fact, be citywide. To the best of my recollection, former LBPD Chief Lance accepted a service retirement when his son was appointed to the police academy.
That Long Beach has clearly benefitted from the informal practice of patronage in its police department is, I think, inarguable. One need only look to such prominent Long Beach Police families as the Fosters, the Rose’s, the Robertsons, and several others for clear proof of this. A blanket prohibition against the hiring of those kids-of-cops would also have severely diminished the overall quality of our public safety!
Wherever police misconduct occurs it is wrong and those who commit it should be dealt with quickly and severely.
But let’s avoid throwing out the police babies with the bathwater, shall we?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/who-is-watching-the-cops/237649/
If you don’t go to the article, this is the only quote you need to read:
“Here is an inescapable conclusion: police officers in New York City need to be monitored more closely. So do police officers everywhere else. Were it up to me, the cops of America would have a dashboard camera on every cruiser, a digital audio recorder in every pocket, a camcorder running during every interrogation, and secret internal affairs officers operating in every precinct. The exoneration of wrongfully accused police officers would please me as much as the bad cops who were punished for breaking the law or acting unprofessionally. I’d also pass a federal law permitting United States citizens to record the activity of on duty cops without fear of being prosecuted (nope, you don’t necessarily have that right already, depending on where you live). “
Hear, hear, Ms. LB! I find not a single thing wrong with that quote. Here’s another from the same article that think readers should be sure to note:
“It isn’t that NYPD officers are irredeemably corrupt, or that they’re unfairly maligned, though there are instances when both of those things are true. The point is that even in one of the most professional, highly scrutinized police departments in the country, serious misconduct happens.”