LA TIMES OP/ED: PUBLIC HAS RIGHT TO KNOW NAMES OF COPS IN SHOOTINGS
By Greater Long Beach
This perspective piece by Jim Newton appears in today’s editions of the Los Angeles Times, where he oversees the editorial pages. Newton’s resume as a reporter also includes extensive coverage of federal law enforcement and the Los Angeles Police Department between 1992 and 1997, a period that included the 1992 civil unrest, the federal trial of the LAPD officers who beat Rodney King, and the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. GreaterLongBeach.com is publishing Newton’s piece because of its relevance to current events in Long Beach, among them the fatal shooting of unarmed resident Doug Zerby by Long Beach Police Department officers in December and the pending lawsuit against the city’s Citizens Police Complaint Commission by a former investigator, Tomas Gonzales, who contends he was fired for investigating citizen complaints against the LBPD too thoroughly.
Jim Newton’s perspective:
In this season of discontent with public employee unions, California’s police officer associations are waging costly, fruitless and self-defeating campaigns to protect their members from legitimate public accountability. Police unions have recently inserted themselves in battles in Pasadena, Long Beach and the county of Los Angeles, all to prevent the release of names of officers involved in shootings.
That’s awful public policy. A police officer on duty performs a consummately public responsibility. Officers are identifiable to the public — they wear their names on their uniforms — because it’s crucial that people in the community know their identities. Police are armed and allowed to use force, but they must do so in the service of the public, and under its scrutiny.
And yet, in a spate of cases, police unions are fighting that premise. Last December, for instance, Long Beach officers shot a man carrying a garden hose nozzle. When reporters asked for the names of the officers involved, the Long Beach union intervened, saying the release of that information would violate the officers’ privacy. Similarly, in two shootings involving Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies — one late at night on Sept. 14, 2009, the other on a summer afternoon in Compton — their union is making the same argument.
In all these 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.
71 Comments
Why has the Mayor and Long Beach City Council authorized City Attorney Shannon to spend taxpayers dollars to file a law suit WITH the Police Officers Association (POA) Union to prevent disclosure of names of police officers involved in a shooting?
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/21/local/la-me-police-names-20110121/2
Does it make any sense the city is spending taxpayers money to prevent public transparency at the same time the city is telling us it must lay off more police to balance the budget?
Is the best way to protect police officers to disguise their identities? Wouldn’t a better way be to conduct police work openly and in collaboration with the public, to build public support for the police rather than encourage public suspicion?
Where will this lead to? Should police officers take off their name tags? Should the police not sign speeding tickets? Is the best way to protect social workers from criticism to let them be anonymous? How about schoolteachers? Or doctors accused of malpractice? Should priests accused of molesting children remain anonymous?
As the union well knows, those who might most wish to harm them already have their names. The union’s real effort is aimed at keeping the general public in the dark.
The LA Times article is interesting and informative. I think it might be helpful to keep in mind that, as Mr. W makes clear, 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 and perspectives
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 biases.
But the LA Times article is an opinion piece, as are most of Mr. Ruehle’s comments, and I think readers would be wise to remember this.
So says recently retired Long Beach Police Officer John B. Greet. Yeah right. And this is the same guy who claims I have a “clear bias.”
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.
Mr, Ruehle most assuredly has a clear bias on these matters. I do also. The difference between us is that I readily admit to mine, while he continues to comment and to act upon his while persistently refusing to admit that he has one.
Intellectual dishonesty much?
This is one of the biggest problems in law enforcement. Protecting their own. If it were a non-police citizen, his/her name would be blasted all over town, in every newslink available. This is part of the “guilty until proven innocent” hypocrisy of law enforcement and judicial system.
If the public doesn’t know the name of the killing officer, then we are not able to investigate, research and call out possible related cases where the gun was drawn before the brain was with these individuals.
It’s all a big-brother-cover up – left to Internal Affairs and OTHER cops to do the weeding out of this information.
Mainstream media as well doesn’t help by pursuing it. In fact, they often are willing to mollify the law enforcement and judicial system by keeping things under wraps – providing just enough sensationalism to the public to keep them in fear – which of course, is one of the greatest ways of controlling the public and preventing them from asking “WHY?”
The City of Long Beach has a corrupt Government and this is unraveling (thankfully). Mr. Greet, perhaps you are an idealist because what you describe is a beautiful fantasy. Here in Long Beach, our City Council members who would like to speak on the Zerby matter will not because Mr. Shannon apparently has told them if they do they could be personally liable. Even our City Council members who are good feel that their hands are tied in the current system of Government. Some people, who have been around way to long wield an awful lot of power in our town. The individuals were elected, however it was not truly the citizens of Long Beach who did so, it was a small group of active voters that did. Voter turnout in this town is ridiculously low. BUT the tides are turning and the power elite in this town and the way it does business will soon crash the way Bell did. So thank you Mike Ruehle, who if nothing else plants questions in an apathetic public’s minds.
Hi LB Skeptic: In the context of all that is possible in Long Beach, in California and in this greatest of nations, I am most assuredly an idealist. When did it become so distasteful to us to constantly seek after and strive toward the ideal in all aspects of human endeavor, including our government?
I do recognize that the approaches to self-government that I argue for and insist are possible, are just that, possibilities. Whether they become probabilities remains very much to be seen.
As I have said, before we can seek to change our government in any meaningful and constructive way, we must first change ourselves and almost all of our current assumptions about the *proper* role of government in our lives.
As you allude, far too many among us see government as a weapon to be wielded to compel and control the populace, rather than the apt and tightly controlled instrumentality it was *intended* to be. A tool designed to be used *by* the populace to facilitate and secure the maximum amount of personal freedoms and individual liberties possible, for everyone, as properly constrained by the rule of law.
As for Mr. Ruehle and others who argue as he does, I take no issue -at all- with their desire to “plant questions in an apathetic public’s minds.” The umbrage I take is with some of the methods they employ in doing so. I think Mr. ruehle and others are often intentionally deceptive and blatantly misleading and duplicitous in their methods. I take issue with that. He and others descend almost immediately into sarcasm, ridicule and the offering of insults whenever anyone who may be equally well-intended has the temerity to disagree with their points of view.
These sorts of approaches to discussion and debate are not constructive, they are corrosive. They are not productive, they are pious, prejudicial, and far more self- than other-serving. I think Mr. Ruehle and others could be far more effective in convincing others if they would give over these counter-productive and unconstructive methods and approach others from positions of mutual respect and courtesy.
So yes, Skeptic, I shall be an idealist. We may never actually achieve that ideal, within either our government or ourselves, but unless we unceasingly strive toward that ideal, we are not likely to ever achieve much of anything that is meaningful or productive.
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 (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
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.
Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – Public Shut Out
“I am a juror on a criminal case at our current Long Beach Courthouse. All courts were recessed Thursday for the exciting groundbreaking ceremonies for the new courthouse.
“A couple of us jurors walked across the street to welcome this event and we learned the public was not allowed inside under the tent – only the dignitaries. Police standing on Magnolia Avenue told us we were not allowed to watch standing on the sidewalks.
“Something was not right with this picture. I am serving as a juror. I am a life-long resident of Long Beach. Our current and future courthouses are public. That makes me “public.” Why was the public not welcome to attend the groundbreaking of our future courthouse?”
Randy Lewis
Long Beach
(Source: Press-Telegram – Letters to the Editor, Tuesday, 4/12/2011 presstelegram.com)
The Belmont Shore Patch is reporting John Hines, a Long Beach Fire Department Captain arrested by Seal Beach Police April 1, 2011 for felony hit & run of a bicyclist is married to Fawn Hines, a Long Beach Police Officer.
The Long Beach Police Department initially LIED and denied Fawn Hines is a police officer. However, the Police changed their story and admitted fawn Hines was police officer AFTER the Patch reporter found court documents confirming her employment. You can read about it at the below link.
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/bicyclist-hit-and-run-case-he-had-to-have-known-he-hit-him
How come the Long Beach Police Department finds it acceptable to LIE to everyone, including the press? This is the department charged with telling the truth. No wonder there are so many large multi-million dollar settlements paid to innocent people sent to prison by Long Beach Police officers who LIE in court and fabricate evidence.
I can just hear it now……”Sorry judge. Zerby didn’t have a gun after all. I forgot to mention it was only a hose nozzle.”
Mr. Ruehle’s take on this aspect of the story is entirely predictable.
Considering that Mr. Ruehle has a habit of *intentionally* and *repeatedly* posting false and misleading information on this fora and others in efforts to support his positions, it makes perfect sense that he would leap to the assumption that Sgt. Fernandez lied.
The BelmontShore-NaplesPatch, however, is apparently not so willing to slander Sgt. Hernandez. This is how the Patch has chosen to report this information:
“Long Beach police Sgt. Rico Fernandez confirmed Tuesday afternoon that Fawn Hines was a Long Beach officer but no longer employed by the department, and referred further questions to the city’s civil services agency. Calls to verify employment were referred to human relations, then to the city spokesman Ed Kamlan, and by 9 p.m. he said the police department would call the next morning. On Wednesday, Fernandez learned that he misspoke and that Fawn Hines remains with the department.”
Truly, as a former colleague of Off. Hines’, I just do not see any constructive purpose for bringing her name or position into this. As the spouse of the suspect in such a tragic event -a spouse who was apparently not present at the time and is only left to deal with the aftermath with everyone else- she really is a victim in this as well. Whatever else may be going on with Off. Hines, in this she is entitled to some understanding and compassion.
The Patch changed has changed what their article said. Originally, the article stated Sgt. Rico Fernandez told the Patch that Fawn Hines did not work for the Long Beach Police Department. The article also originally stated that Sgt. Rico Fernandez changed his story AFTER the Patch “uncovered” court documents indicating Fawn Hines was an officer employed by the department.
The Patch chooses to characterize the untruthful statement of Police Spokesman Sgt. Rico Fernandez’s as misspoken. I call it a LIE, no different than when the police spokeperson misspoke (LIED) and told the public a mother of young children mowed down in a crosswalk lept in front of the police car to commit suicide.
The police spokesperson represents the entire department. Furthermore, the police department is charged with telling the truth. Yet the police spokesperson frequently lies or misleads the public. What type of example does it set for other officers when they know the spokesperson is lying to the public? Does that validate LYING as an acceptable practice in the Police Department?
Considering the number of innocent people who have received taxpayer paid settlements because the Long Beach Police lied on the witness stand and fabricated evidence, lying is indeed a problem in the Long Beach Police Department and continues to be a problem even though they have changed to new Chief McDonnell.
Copy-n-pasted from my earlier posting at The Patch:
1. Mr. Ruehle offers *zero* proof that Sgt. Fernandez lied. For Mr. Ruehle to make such a claim without offering proof is despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous. This is also extremely ironic, given Mr. Ruehle’s own propensity for *intentionally* posting false and misleading information on this forum and others
2. I suspect that The Patch claims Sgt. Fernandez “misspoke” because, like Mr. Ruehle, it has no proof to the contrary and, unlike Mr. Ruehle, it is not interested in publishing remarks about public officials that are despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous
3. Mr. Ruehle claims he can provide examples of police spokespeople frequently lying or misleading the public, yet conveniently fails to do so. If he ever does so, I suspect what we are more likely to read is a long list of public comments that Mr. Ruehle feels a need to mischaracterize as lies, when in fact they are not. Much as he has now done in the case of Sgt. Fernandez
4. (Not relevant to Mr. Ruehle’s comments here)
5. Mr. Ruehle’s method of discussion and debate remains one of intentional falsehoods, blatant misdirections, rhetorical obfuscations and deflections, and unfounded allegations entirely bereft of any offering of factual proof
How is it possible that John B. Greet (former police officer, sergeant and detective) in a 20-year law enforcement career did not learn the difference between slander, which is spoken, and libel, which is written? It can’t be that he thinks a blog post is a spoken defamation because he uses “slanderous” to describe “publishing” in one sentence.
Examples of Greet’s legal expertise:
“The BelmontShore-NaplesPatch, however, is apparently not so willing to slander Sgt. Hernandez. This is how the Patch has chosen to report this information:”
“Mr. Ruehle offers *zero* proof that Sgt. Fernandez lied. For Mr. Ruehle to make such a claim without offering proof is despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous.”
“… it is not interested in publishing remarks about public officials that are despicably irresponsible and blatantly slanderous”
Mr. Ruehle is correct. I inadvertently mis-identified his offense as slander when what he has actually committed against Sgt. Fernandez is more appropriately referred to as libel. I stand most humbly corrected and I assure readers that I will not again mistake what some may consider the often slanderous comments Mr. Ruehle sometimes utters when speaking publicly, with the libelous written comments he posts on fora such as this. Mr. Ruehle was right to correct me in this and I willingly except his correction.
Now if only he would make some small effort to correct his libelous comments concerning Sgt. Fernandez. I suspect he will not do so, any more than he has made any attempt to correct any one of the many other intentionally false and misleading comments he has posted here and elsewhere. Mr. Ruehle does not appear to believe that he should be held accountable for the intentionally false and misleading comments he posts on fora such as this.
I intend to disabuse him of that notion.
If you read the LA TIMES article referenced above, you will find 26 comments on its blog, with the vast majority supporting the release of officer’s names.
You will also find a person calling himself ROBERT GARCIA (same as Long Beach’s 1st District Councilman) arguing in SUPPORT OF NOT releasing the names of officers who shoot and kill people.
In regards to the Beachcomber survey where the following question is asked:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
76% of the 267 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of MURDER BY THE LONG BEACH POLICE.
The commenter Mr. Ruehle refers to does not call himself Robert Garcia. Mr. Ruehle offers no proof that the commenter in question has anything whatosever to do with our own 1st District Councilmember who, as a Ph.D, is likely to be far more articulate in his written public comments than the poster in question was.
As to the Beachcomber survey, this is interesting but, fortunately, not to any degree either scientific or factually informative. In fact, I think the manner in which people are encouraged to participate is pretty deceptive. In the portion of his OpEd piece in which Mr. Beeler encourages readers to participate in the survey, he states:
“What do you think? Did the police act properly in Zerby’s case or did they fail in the performance of their duties?”
When one goes to the survey, however, an entirely different question is offered:
“Did the LBPD commit an act of murder in the case of Douglas Zerby?”
I hope readers here can clearly identify the difference between those two (actually three) specific questions. But some who have participated in the survey may not have.
Greet, you may want to check your “facts” again. You incorrectly referred to Councilman Robert Garcia as a Ph.D when his dissertation was for an Ed.D:
http://www.ced.csulb.edu/programs/ed-d-educational-leadership/edd-program-dissertations
Just another one of those “subtle” mistakes on Greet’s behalf… kind of like confusing slander and libel.
Mr. Ruehle is correct and I stand most humbly corrected. Long Beach 1st District Councilmember Robert Garcia is, indeed, a Doctor of Education, rather than a Doctor of Philosophy. I willingly revise remarks accordingly:
“The commenter Mr. Ruehle refers to does not call himself Robert Garcia. Mr. Ruehle offers no proof that the commenter in question has anything whatosever to do with our own 1st District Councilmember who, as an Ed.D, is likely to be far more articulate in his written public comments than the poster in question was.”
In truth, and in the interest of complete accuracy, Dr. Garcia pursued a Doctorate in *Higher* Education, but I don’t know if the letters change with that or not. None of which, of course, has any real bearing upon the points I made.
Mr. Ruehle stated: “You will also find a person calling himself ROBERT GARCIA…” This is false.
Mr. Ruehle offers no proof that the commenter in question has anything whatosever to do with our own 1st District Councilmember. This is true and instead of answering *that* challenge, he chose to focus upon my error in identifying Dr. Garcia’s actual degree.
This has become typical of Mr. Ruehle’s rhetorical tactics…to attempt to deflect attention from his own false statements and unfounded allegations by pointing out the inadvertent errors of others. Whenever I inadvertently post a factual error, readers will see me acknowledge to the error and correct the record.
Now let’s see Mr. Ruehle do the same.
Despite what Greet says, the following comment to this LA Times article was made by a person calling himself “Robert Garcia.” Feel free to view it yourself at the below link.
Robert Garcia1 at 3:25 PM April 12, 2011
Sorry I should have posted DISAGREE WITH OUR OPINION. NO LAPD OFFICERS SHOULDN’T HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR NAMES.
http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-oe-newton-police-secrecy-20110411/10
Mr. Ruehle is apparently having trouble seeing the numeral 1 at the end of the name the commenter used. When Mr. Ruehle claims that “You will also find a person calling himself ROBERT GARCIA.” This is false. The person does not call himself that.
Mr. Ruehle attempts to artfully imply that this commenter might be our 1st District Councilmember but offers no proof whatsoever to support this implication other than that the person chose to use a name that is similar to Dr. Garcia’s.
I maintain that this is precisely the sort of misleading rhetoric that Mr. Ruehle persists in resorting to on sites like these…to imply something may be true -that he cannot prove to be true- in an effort to support his position.
While I certainly cannot prove this, it is certainly possible that Mr. Ruehle posted the comment in the LA Times himself, posing as “Robert Garcia1″ just so that he (Ruehle) could later offer the misleading comment he has now offered here.
And I still await Mr. Ruehle’s acknowledgments, retractions, and corrections-for-the-record for the various intentionally false and misleading comments he has posted here and elsewhere.
I have been waiting for quite a while, now, and I suspect I shall continue to wait for a very long time…
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.
A question to consider. Why does the Long Beach Police Department release the names of its officers (below link) who arrested arsonist Joshua Ethan Thomas, yet the same police Department refuses to release the names of its officers who shot and killed Douglas Zerby without warning?
http://www.lbpost.com/news/allison/11494
Is appears the Long Beach police share the names of its officers when they do something positive like arrest Thomas, but chose to withhold officer’s names when they do something wrong like kill Doug Zerby.
The City and Police Department claims they are protecting the officers from retaliation by not releasing the names of the officers who killed Zerby. If that is the case, then why wasn’t the City and Police Department similarly concerned that the friends and relatives of arsonist Joshua Ethan Thomas might retaliate against the officers who arrested Thomas?
I think these would be excellent questions to pose directly to official PD spokespersons like Sgt. Fernandez.
Unfortunately when some members of the public make libelous public statements about them whenever they make a simple mistake -as Mr. Ruehle did when he recently accused Sgt. Fernandez of lying- spokespersons like Sgt. Fernandez may be far less likely to make themselves available for public comment.
Such is the corrosive and thoroughly counter-productive nature of publishing libelous comments about public officials. Such comments tend to alienate the very people and organizations we hope to encourage to be more open and transparent with us.
Hello Mr. Greet. I would hope that your take on when and whether a taxpayer-paid spokesperson for the Long Beach Police Department chooses to do his job is not accurate. When someone is paid to be a spokesperson for any governmental agency or official—from the President to the City to the Police Department—that person’s job is to communicate with the public…the entire public, not simply those who are sympathetic to the official or agency. These jobs require people with integrity and thick skin. These spokespersons ought not decide with whom they will be honest—or communicate with at all—on the likelihood of getting their feelings hurt or the likelihood that the citizen will accept their answers or even listen. Their job is to serve the public. I would hope you did your work with the LBPD on the same basis, protecting and serving everybody, without considering the political position or ethnicity or manners of the person…or whether or not your work would be sufficiently appreciated.
Hello Mr. W: As I have posted elsewhere: Unlike Sgt. Fernandez, I do not speak for LBPD. But I do know Sgt. Fernandez to be one of the *most* ethical and conscientious police professionals I have ever had the privelege of calling a colleague. He will likely answer any question posed to him, from any quarter, as substantively as he is able.
My only point is that some who demand government access and transparency the loudest, sometimes are their own worst enemy in achieving those very goals. I think they should consider this fact, and adjust their sometimes deceptive and duplicitous rhetorical tactics accordingly.
And yes, Mr. W, I always did my very best to serve our community and all members of it to the very best of my abilities. Although I doubt Mr. Ruehle recalls (or whether he would admit it if he did) I have also assisted him -directly- within the course and scope of my former employment. This fact alone should more than suffice to prove my willingness and ability to protect and serve everybody, without considering the political position or ethnicity or manners of the person…or whether or not my work would be sufficiently appreciated.
In regards to the Beachcomber survey where the following question is asked:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
75% of the 302 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of MURDER BY THE LONG BEACH POLICE.
I think it is great that we live in a nation where criminal guilt or innocence is determined in courts of law, based upon evidence, rather than upon public opinion polls which people are led to in an intellectually dishonest manner.
Don’t you?
In regards to the Beachcomber survey where the following question is asked:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
78% of the 375 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of MURDER BY THE LONG BEACH POLICE.
Yeah, you have a right to sit on your porch with whatever you want, but this seems like stupidity on both sides. I can see how you’d be twitchy if some intoxicated dolt pointed it your way in low light.
I’d vote for “Was a drunk dumbass shot by cops who overreacted?” as a survey question. And, for now, “Probably” would be the answer.
But thank God (or whatever) our judicial system isn’t run by opinion surveys, ‘cuz those surveys are worth what you paid to take them.
Wow! Andy, that sort of logic is, well, logical. That won’t get you anywhere around here.
IMO, this is a tragedy. But I feel like we live in a society free of personal responsibility. Was the LBPD responsible (or lacking) in their tactics? Maybe. But I challenge ANYONE who calls this “murder”. Knowing that people get shot around here by thugs and other idiots, what should they have done?
This sounds like the popular phrase now of “why didn’t they taze him?”. Because, this isn’t playstation. Point a gun, or something that every reasonable person thinks looks like a gun, at a cop and all bets are off. If I was in the police position and someone pointed that at me, or certainly my child, I can only hope I would have the sack to shoot.
I don’t wish ill upon the Zerby family or the deceased, but let’s not take his personal responsibility out of the equation simply b/c he is deceased.
In regards to the Beachcomber survey where the following question is asked:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
76% of the 428 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of MURDER BY THE LONG BEACH POLICE.
Current Oakland Police Chief (and former Long Beach Police chief) Tony Batts is outfitting Oakland Police officer with lapel cameras to document every police interaction with the public in attempts to improve “the department’s ongoing commitment to transparency.”
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/03/29/oakland-police-officers-equipped-with-portable-cameras/
Why hasn’t the Long Beach Police Department done likewise to improve its transparency? Doesn’t the Doug Zerby killing of an unarmed man by Long Beach Police justify such equipment?
I forgot. Even if the Long Beach Police Department had lapel cameras, our wonderful City Council would direct City Attorney Shannon and the Police Union to sue to prevent public access to the videotapes.
The public would only have access to the videotapes when the police conducted themselves properly, not when police misconduct occurred. That’s kind of like the police always publish the names of police officers when they do something good, but sue to prevent the release of police officer names when there is potential police misconduct.
In regards to the Beachcomber survey where the following question is asked:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
78% of the 506 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of MURDER BY THE LONG BEACH POLICE.
Mr. Ruehle: “Why hasn’t the Long Beach Police Department done likewise to improve its transparency?”
A little research beyond Mr. Ruehle’s linked article reveals that on 9/21/10, the Oakland City Council approved the use of about $540k in “unencumbered balance” of existing grant funds to purchase 350 lapel cameras and support equipment. Perhaps LBPD has no such grant funds available, unencumbered or otherwise.
As a strong proponent of dash-mounted cameras in police cars, I also like this lapel camera idea so long as the equipment does not provide any additional tactical challenges for the officers.
I think it is also wise to consider that all technologies have their limitations. These cameras apparently only record about 4 hours worth of data per shift so they cannot possibly “film every interaction, be it a traffic stop, walking stop, search or pursuit” during an officer’s shift -as OPD Capt. Tracey is quoted to have said will be required- unless the officers can turn them on and off at will, which would seem to defeat at least one of their intended purposes.
Still, any technology that can help to immunize officers, departments, cities and taxpayers from the hundreds of false misconduct complaints received and the dozens of frivolous claims and lawsuits filed throughout each year can only be a good thing. Should these cameras also help to accurately memorialize police encounters in the event of actual misconduct, all the better.
We would still need to find the money to pay for these cameras and then to support, maintain and/or replace them afterward. Perhaps other grant funds are available like those OPD apparently found, applied for, and was eventually awarded.
In regards to the Beachcomber survey where the following question is asked:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
82% of the 621 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of MURDER BY THE LONG BEACH POLICE.
A Long Beach Police detective Erik Alvarez was charged today with 3 felony underage sex charges by the Upland Police Department.
http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_17985382
Does Police Chief McDonnell have ANY control over his department of crooks, liars, murderers and rapists?
According to San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Karen Schmauss, she has been told by Upland Police Officials, not Long Beach city officials, that Long Beach Police detective Erik Alvarez has already been fired.
“LBPD officials confirmed in the following statement that an employee had been arrested in Upland, but didn’t identify him.” “Whether Alvarez was actually on unpaid leave, or whether it was just a technicality in the process of firing him, was unclear Tuesday.”
Long Beach City Officials AGAIN chooses to withhold the name of a rapist police officer. If it wasn’t for the Upland police, Long Beach residents would not have even known about this incident and the continuing and pervasive misconduct by Long Beach police officers.
There is a very thin gray line between the cops and the crooks in Long Beach.
According to the arrest record (see below), it turns out this is not a simple, statutory “underage sex charge” case as the Press Telegram title suggests. Long Beach Police Detective Erik Alvarez has been charged with 261(A)(2) Forcible Rape.
http://www.localcrimenews.com/lookup.php?jid=5955486
The charge information (concerning Erik Alvarez) in Mr. Ruehle’s “localcrimenews” link is false, at least as compared with the information readily available on the SB County Superior Court’s own website. Not that this makes the actual allegations any less distressing or, if proven true, any less tragic for all concerned.
As serious as the charges against Erik Alvarez are, I think it is important to acknowledge that he has not yet been convicted of any crime, rape or otherwise. In this context, Mr. Ruehle’s inference that Alvarez is a “rapist police officer” is a false, fraudulent, and potentially libelous statement. Further, a small percentage of Long Beach Police officers most certainly commit misconduct, as do a small percentage of police officers in virtually all police departments, but this is by no means “pervasive.”
Mr. Ruehle’s mischaracterization of police officer misconduct in Long Beach as “pervasive” -coupled, as it is, with his “very thin gray line,” and “department of crooks, liars, murderers and rapists” epithets- is devoid of any factual basis.
Greet declares the information on one website to be “false” because it differs from information on another website. Once again, his words seem to expose either a lack of communication skills or lack of knowledge of the criminal justice system.
The “local crime news” website I provided indicates the Upland Police Department arrested LBPDs Erik Alvarez on a charge of PC 261(A)(2) Forcible Rape. If the SBCSC website (no link provided by Greet) lists other penal code violations, then the likely explanation is that the SB County D.A. chose to file different charges. It does not prove that the Upland PD arrest report contains “false” information as Greet, the recently retired Long Beach policeman, claims.
It is usually wise to avoid relying upon third party information services such as localcrimenews.com, particularly when more reliable information is readily available directly from government sources like, for example, County Superior Court websites.
Localcrimenews.com, itself, warns its users that “Neither United Reporting nor any of our data suppliers represents or warrants that the Information is current, complete or accurate.” Perhaps Mr. Ruehle overlooked that disclaimer. (Terms and Conditions #9: http://www.localcrimenews.com/terms.php)
Mr. Ruehle is free to rely upon whatever sources he likes. Some of the information he so anxiously posted in this case unfortunately proved false.
Further, Mr. Ruehle erroneously referred to the information found in his link as an “arrest report.” This too is false. The site he links, itself, does not even refer to its data as an “arrest report.” An arrest report is a specific type of document produced by a public officer or agent empowered to make arrests. The link Mr. Ruehle provided lists the “source” of its data as “San Bernardino SD” but that agency did not “arrest” Alvarez, Upland PD did.
Finally, I never claimed that the Upland PD arrest report contains false information. I have not read it and, so, could not possibly know whether it does or not. I said that the information in Mr. Ruehle’s link is false, at least as compared with the information readily available on the SB County Superior Court’s own website.
Just one more indication that Long Beach Police Chief McDonnell’s Department is out of control. From shooting unarmed residents and raping young women, to embezzlement, DUI’s, stealing from the police evidence room, fabricating evidence and lying in court under oath, all in the last two years.
As serious as the charges against Erik Alvarez are, I think it is important to acknowledge that he has not yet been convicted of any crime, “raping young women” or otherwise. In this context, Mr. Ruehle’s inference that LBPD employees are “raping young women” is a false, fraudulent, and potentially libelous statement.
Tell that to the young woman, her mother and the rest of her family and lets see how much sympathy you get.
In regards to the Beachcomber survey where the following question is asked:
DID THE LBPD COMMIT AN ACT OF MURDER IN THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ZERBY?
http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=2459
82% of the 658 people who have so far responded to the survey indicate it was an act of MURDER BY THE LONG BEACH POLICE.
Maybe the Beachcomber will do a survey to see how many people believe LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICER Erik Alvarez RAPED this young woman?
Mr. Ruehle seems to have overlooked my earlier comment in which I stated quite clearly that these charges are tragic and, if true, acts that are utterly despicable when committed by anyone, let alone a person who had once sworn an oath to keep his “private life unsullied as an example to all.”
He also seems to have forgotten another comment in which I stated, quite clearly (and to which he has since responded), that “the information in (his) link was false, at least as compared with the information readily available on the SB County Superior Court’s own website. *Not that this makes the allegations any less distressing or, if proven true, any less tragic for all concerned.”* (emphasis added)
Mr. Ruehle seems to enjoy posting false, fraudulent, and potentially libelous statements on sites like this. This is a reasonable conclusion since he has been doing so more and more often lately. His doing so does not one-single-thing to assist the victim of the crimes that have been alleged here or to assist her mother or the rest of her family in dealing with it.
All Mr. Ruehle’s habit of posting false, fraudulent, and potentially libelous statements accomplishes here is to serve to deflect from the true focus of this terrible story; that a minor female may have been despicably victimized and that a former LBPD officer has been charged with sex crimes, that he has separated from employment, and is currently encarcerated.
Perhaps GLB will host a survey to see how many respondents believe that a person should repeatedly post false, fraudulent, and potentially libelous statements on sites like these and still expect to have any credibility whatsoever.
An OATH doesn’t mean anything to the LONG BEACH POLICE. I can provide the names of at least 5 LONG BEACH officers who, under an oath the tell the truth, were found by the court to have lied and sent innocent people to jail. And they were allowed by the department to still keep their jobs.
If the “OATH” meant anything to the Long beach Police Department, they would have IMMEDIATELY terminated those officers found to have lied in court.
Given Mr. Ruehle’s propensity for posting false, fraudulent, and potentially libelous statements concerning the Long Beach Police Department on sites like these, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a significant number of that departments employees had quite a few choice “oaths” for him.
According to the attached links, the names of LONG BEACH Police Officers found to have lied in court resulting in innocent people going to jail are Norman C. Turley, Carthel S. Roberson, Ronnie J. Skaggs, Douglas E. Bostard and Robert M. Bell. Long Beach taxpayers paid huge settlements to compensate those falsely imprisoned.
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?d=39505&n=06-55837&s=CA
http://vlex.com/vid/borsos-prchal-bostard-37663738
As long as we are talking about “OATHS,” how does Long Beach Police Officers committing rape fall under that OATH. How about we start with Long Beach Police Officer Erik Alvarez, who is currently in jail for rape of an underage family member.
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/lbpd-officer-charged-with-sex-crimes-has-left-job
If you think rape by Long Beach Police Officers is an anomoly, don’t forget about Long Beach Police Lt. Robert Padilla who pleaded innocent to charges of unlawful sexual intercourse and oral copulation with a minor on two occasions that he met while on the job. In a plea bargain that kept him out of prison, Padilla, pleaded no contest to one felony count of having sex with a 16-year-old girl.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-11/news/hl-6574_1_long-beach-police-department
And don’t forget about LONG BEACH Police Sgt. Robert L. Ballew who was arrested by the LA Police Department for rapes on two different women.
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-14/local/me-5195_1_long-beach-police
Though Ballew was acquitted on rape and attempted rape charges, jurors said they did not necessarily believe Ballew is innocent. In interviews, a majority of the eight-woman, four-man jury said they felt Ballew is probably guilty but there was insufficient evidence to prove it.
And more recently, Long Beach Police Officer David Frazier, who was fired for having sex with a 17-year old Explorer Scout he met on the job.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIyRHyuOUvkJ:www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx%3FartID%3D1552+%22David+Frazier+%22+%22Explorer+Scout%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
In fact, Los Angeles considered disbanding their Explorer Scout program due to repeated problems experienced with their association with the Long Beach Police Department.
Mr. Ruehle can be an *excellent* researcher. But he often researches until he finds information that seems to support his predetermined conclusions, looks no further, and then gleefully posts his often incomplete information as proof positive of his allegations. This tactic of discussion and debate is as fraudulent as it is disingenuous, and no wisdom is gained from it.
There may very well be more involved in these cases than the information in the links Mr. Ruehle provides. Were these cases ever appealed? If so, what was the result of the appeals? If it was definitively -and finally- proven (in court) that the officers lied under oath, and still retained their positions, how did that happen? As I have mentioned elsewhere, sometimes the Civil Service Commission reverses disciplinary decisions the police chief makes. Did that happen in these cases? If so, then “the department” did *not* allow these officers to keep their jobs, the Civil Service Commission did.
If we can agree to define “anomaly” as: “an abnormal deviation from the characteristic form of a group” or “a deviation from the common rule” then, yes, criminal charges like these among police officers in general and Long Beach Police Officers specifically, are most definitely an anomaly.
Not that even one such incident is not despicable and tragic. If these charges against Alvarez prove true, in my opinion there is no prison cell dark or dank enough in which the defendant should spend the rest of his natural life…let alone the “four years and four months” the PT is reporting to be possible upon conviction.
There remain, however, questions of evidence for a jury to evaluate and of law for a judge to consider. In my view, criminal sentences, in general, are far too lenient, particularly since the primary purpose of imprisonment for crime is “punishment”, and not “rehabilitation.” [PC 1170(a)(1)]
As to Ballew, apparently Mr. Ruehle feels that our current system of jurisprudence should be changed. In place of inconvenient courts, judges, juries, rules of evidence, vigourous prosecutions and active defenses, Mr. Ruehle would prefer that criminal guilt or innocence be determined through disingenuous and unscientific surveys conducted on local news and information sites that have publishers with great big axes of their own to grind against the city and LBPD.
All Long Beach Police Officers take an Oath of Office at least once, and sometimes several times, during their careers. They are also expected to learn and aspire to meet the professional conduct ideals set forth in the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.
As I have said repeatedly, here and elsewhere, police officers should be held to a higher standard of professionalism and conduct -both on and off duty- than that of the average citizen. When they commit misconduct it should be investigated throroughly and, if proven true, punished quickly and severely. No public safety employee, and particularly no police officer, who is convicted of a misdemeanor or felony crime should retain his or her position of public trust.
Mr. Ruehle has said that “Los Angeles considered disbanding their Explorer Scout program due to repeated problems experienced with their association with the Long Beach Police Department.” He should cite his source for this information so that others can determine wheher he has or has not posted yet another in a lengthening list of false and fraudulent comments here.
Long Beach Police officer Bryon Ellsberry charged with rape.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-01/local/me-64522_1_long-beach
Long Beach officer sentenced to 20 days community service for DUI over twice the legal limit.
http://www.ourweekly.com/los-angeles/long-beach-officer-sentenced-20-days-community-service-dui
Isn’t it interesting how NONE of Long Beach’s “community” newspapers reported on the LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICER recently CONVICTED of a DUI, let alone the fact he was given a PALTRY 20 days of community service for being over twice the legal limit.
http://www.ourweekly.com/los-angeles/long-beach-officer-sentenced-20-days-community-service-dui
If you assaulted your girlfriend and two of her friends and took wild shots with a gun, what are the chances you would get let off with a slap on the wrist? Not too high, but often LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICERS who misbehave off-duty get coddled by judges
Read this press release from the OC DA’s office about Long Beach Police Officer Orlando Mendez, and read the line where the judge reduced the felonies to misdemeanors over “the objection of the People.”
http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2009/08/17/judge-robert-fitzgerald-coddles-violent-criminal/12047/
And was this reported in any Long Beach newspapers? The answer is NO.
Headline: Flood of lawsuits by LAPD officers costs the city millions. Keep in mind that Long Beach’s NEW Police Chief McDonnell was hired away from LA where he was one of its top managers responsible for LA’s culture of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-millionaire-lapd-cops-20110508,0,5554515.story
What a tragic life one must have to be so bitter, angry and complaining all the time.
Being less egocentric, self-serving, and petulent would seem a far more productive and constructive approach to addressing one’s various public policy concerns than to constantly bash, belittle, moan, groan, and whine all the time.
Public safety personnel should be held to a higher standard of conduct -both on and off duty- than the average citizen. They hold unique positions of public trust in our communities and, as such, they should not be permitted to violate that trust without suffering the loss of the privilege to serve the communities in the way that they have sworn oaths to do.
Those are civil remedies to unprofessional conduct and not criminal remedies, however.
For good or ill our current system of jurisprudence affords judges and prosecutors considerable lattitude in how crimes are prosecuted and how sentences our meted out upon conviction. Such discretion is necessary and reasonable and if a majority of the people dislike the discretion exercised by prosecutors and judges, they are free to remove such public servants from office.
When Mr. Ruehle states: “Long Beach’s NEW Police Chief McDonnell was hired away from LA where he was one of its top managers responsible for LA’s culture of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices” he, once again, offers false, fraudulent, and potentially libelous comments against one of our city’s public officials.
Greet, take solace in the fact you are the person who inspired me to search out the facts about Long Beach Police misconduct. If not for your incessant attempts, while a Long Beach Police Officer yourself, to protect and mislead people regarding reports of Police misconduct, I would not have felt the need to look into it for myself.
Now, as I gather more data about Long Beach Police misconduct, it appears this is an issue much more prevalent and pervasive than you mislead people to believe. I have links to over 50 recent incidents, and growing, of Long Beach Police misconduct, MOST of it not reported by the Long Beach media. That is 6% of the total police force. And that’s only the ones that were caught and charged with crimes, mostly by police departments outside of Long Beach. That begs the question of how many other crimes were committed by Long Beach Police Officers that were covered up and never reported?
And the crazy part is the majority of those officers charged with a crime continue to work as Long Beach Police officers. They weren’t fired. In some cases they were promoted.
Thank you recently retired Police Officer John Greet. Because of your attempts to hide police misconduct, we are all becoming more aware of the true problem that exists with the Long Beach Police Department.
Nice try, Mr. Ruehle. You can mislead readers all you like. You can employ intentionally false, fraudulent and misleading methods all you like. You can persistently flirt with along the ragged adges of libelous public commentary all you like. You can accuse public safety employees of lying without proof. You can allege that others are rapists without foundation. You can accuse our current chief of police of being “one of (L.A.’s) top managers responsible for LA’s culture of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices” without a single shred of evidence to back it up. And you can even accuse me, also utterly without foundation, of attempts to hide police misconduct.
None of that utter and unequivocal nonsense accomplishes anything but to further undermine your own credibility in attempting to report and raise awareness of the many legitimate challenges within our city government.
Instead of eroding confidence in some of our elected and appointed city officials, all you accomplish is to erode confidence in your own ability to remain a fair and reasonable public advocate.
What a waste.
Mike Ruehles’ constant reporting of the many, many crimes against innocent residents of LB does ONE thing, it enlightens the public about what is actually happening in their city. No matter what the argument is between him and John Greet, one fact remains, there are numerous cases of police corruption in the LBPD, and most are being kept from the public, and most have not been dealt with at all. This social injustice is overwhelming, and unless something is done and soon, any one of us may be experiencing the heartbreak the Zerby family, as well as other innocent victims relatives have endured, and then what ? This constant finger pointing from Greet towards Ruehle is designed to distract all of our attention away from the reality of the fact, murders have been committed by the LBPD, MURDERS !! And, next to nothing is being done about it.
I hope the readers here will REALLY read what Mike Ruehle has posted about these attrocities, and start writing letters, organizing some kind of protests and SHOW the City of Long Beach, no one, NO ONE is taking this crap ANYMORE !!!!!