WHEN WILL BLACKOUT BE LIFTED ON LBPD’S KILLING OF DOUG ZERBY?
By Dave Wielenga
It’s going on six weeks since the unseasonably warm Sunday evening in Belmont Shore when Long Beach Police Department officers shot and killed a beer-buzzed surfer named Doug Zerby as he unsuspectingly fiddled with a water nozzle on a friend’s porch.
The officers say they mistook the pistol-shaped nozzle—which they say Zerby was pointing in a two-handed shooter’s grip—for a real gun. Actually, to be precise, that’s what LBPD spokespeople say that the officers said. You’re free to take their word for it.
But you’re just as free to take the word of Zerby’s spokespeople—his mother, one of his sisters and their attorney. They reiterated their version of events during Tuesday night’s Long Beach City Council meeting. And in the words of Pam Amici, Zerby’s mother and a teacher at Poly High for the past 25 years, “an out-of-control Long Beach Police Department … killed my son in cold blood.”
Unfortunately, after all this time, the painful and unproductive exchanges of perspective by a nervous police department and a heartbroken family are still the best we have to go on in high-profile case of truly bizarre and terrible tragedy. Zerby was 35 years old, raised in Long Beach and had an 8-year-old son. He was killed by police officers who were responding to a telephoned complaint about a man with a gun, but who opened fire on him with a service revolver and shotgun without identifying themselves.
Obviously, that scenario begs a lot of questions, demands a lot explanation and provokes a lot of emotions. Frustratingly, however, nearly all the facts related to the case have become secrets of several public officials and law enforcement agencies. Even such basics as the names of the officers and the results of Zerby’s autopsy are included in this information quarantine.
At least three agencies—the Los Angeles District Attorney, the County Coroner and the Police Shooting Review Board—are looking into Zerby’s killing, and they claim the ongoing blackout of facts is essential to their investigations.
You’re free to take their word for it.
But holding information hostage can produce negative effects, too—suspicion and resentment on one side, disinterest and resignation on the other—particularly when it is imposed for so long. This info embargo began the evening Zerby died. That was way back on December 12.
Surprised it’s been that long? Don’t be—the memory tends to fade with the passage of time. Same goes for the sense of shock.
And that’s a big concern for Amici, who wonders whether this long wait with no information may ultimately drain away public interest in the killing of her son and eliminate the public pressure that will likely be necessary to ensure rigorous investigation, real justice and possible reform of Long Beach Police Department procedures.
In case members of the City Council were wondering about that as she spoke Tuesday night, Amici cleared things up in the final sentences of her short address.
“We are not going away,” she promised in a voice both wobbly and resolute, “so please do not ignore us.”
You’re free to take her word for it.
40 Comments
On July 10, 2005, LAPD Officers dealing with an armed and hostile suspect inadvertently and tragically shot and killed an innocent child. The results of the District Attorney’s investigation were not published until November 27, 2006 -over 16 months later- but they were published, including the names and serial numbers of the officers involved.
http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/jsidpena.pdf
I understand this is an extremely difficult time for Zerby’s family and friends. I feel certain it is also a very difficult time for the police employees involved. The investigations proceed methodically and under considerable scrutiny by various duly elected public officials and we should demand nothing less.
once again greet is too ignorant and self absorbed to realize that the last thing this article needs is another “no comment” comment from lbpd, because thats what greet is, lbpd. his standard bs about speaking as a private citizen aside.
Through his comments, howardx seeks to intentionally mislead others. I am not “lbpd.” howardx knows this because I have advised him several times now in other threads where he has made this same accusation. Despite this fact he persists in falsely identifying me in this way. A reasonable question, then, would seem to be: “If howardx persists in seeking to intentionally decieve others about me, what else is he seeking to intentionally deceiving others about?”
Further, howardx once again seeks to re-direct the focus of the discussion onto me and way from the tragic shooting of Zerby. I think this is unfortunate.
I do not pretend to speak for LBPD and never have. I simply suggest, as I always have on this topic, that we try to be patient and allow the concurrent investigations to proceed, conclude, and for the results to made known. Until such time, all most folks here and elsewhere are doing is speculating.
This, in my view, serves no constructive purpose.
I am a law-abiding citizen who remains very scared of the police in this town. They have a long way to go before I have any level of trust in them.
For a law enforcement agency to be effective and, ultimately, successful, it must enjoy the faith, trust and support of those it is intended to serve. This is particularly true for municipal police departments, like that in Long Beach, where the various functions of government are closest to and, so, more closely scrutinzed by the people in those cities.
Law enforcement, keeping the peace and maintaining public safety is a difficult and challenging task under the best of circumstances. But few circumstances are ever ideal in this aspect of self- governance.
We ask much of our police officers and, because of this, we delegate to them a great deal of our authority and autonomy so that they may carry out the tasks we expect them to accomplish on our behalf. Because of *this* we have very high expectations of them and this is as it should be. Because of the great deal of authority we grant them, we expect the highest level of professionalism and accountability possible and this is also as it should be.
We sometimes forget, I think, that our police officers are human beings. No different from the rest of us except in that they receive a considerable amount of training and equipment and that they swear oaths to us to do the jobs we ask of them as well and as professionally as possible at all times. However they remain human and, because of this, subject to occasional error. This is not to say that error necessarily occured in this case (the concurrent investigations to determine this question are still proceeding.)
Nor should all error that occurs in this arena to be considered of malicious origin. Cops are human. They are often confronted with situations that they must analyze, evaluate and then act upon in periods of time that may be measured in tenths of seconds. Few of us are willing to handle such situations and this is precisely why we pay others to handle them for us.
We should remember this when we are considering Zerby or any other challenge in which the police have taken forceful action on our behalf. Nine times out of ten our cops are just doing the very best they can in situations that are not of their own making, in conditions that are less than optimal, and in time frames shorter than most of us take to clap our hands twice.
If errors occured here it is critical that we determine what those errors were and then correct them. But if no malicious or negligent errors occured here, then we really should consider remembering that a cop’s job is often an extremely difficult one and that sometimes, sadly, even when they do everything right, things can sometimes still go very, very wrong.
Los Angeles and the LAPD had to be reminded of this hard truth in Pena and we here in Long Beach may well have to be reminded of it in Zerby.
Certainly all of the cops everywhere are HUMAN, and they make mistakes. The biggest one being when they are wrong they cover up, protect each other at all costs, rewrite history and basically rarely take responsibility for their actions. That is sad, it is also ILLEGAL
Mr. Greet. Assuming that this is very difficult for the police employees involved is just that – an assumption, based perhaps on your own ability to empathize. However, from my experiences with the LBPD (and not all of them but some), these employees may have been able to just shirk it off as another day’s work. In fact, the only account I have heard is of an Officer bragging that he did it. There is value for all in a quick release of the Officer’s names as well as a comfort level achieved by knowing they are no longer out there. I know I for one don’t want to be out there while trigger-happy McGee is patrolling our streets. Perhaps other citizens of this great city would also appreciate knowing the officers that ARE on our streets are trustworthy. I was at the rally at City Council and I feel deep compassion for the Officers who have to wear the Uniform that other Officers have disgraced. Most are good and most get in it for the right reasons. Others should not be there, and the public has a right to chime in on what type of person is worthy to carry a shot gun around and shoot when they think it’s appropriate. Further a statement from the Chief or some city official correcting the Police Chief’s mis statement that Mr Zerby is dead as a result of his own actions would provide some comfort. Right now, it seems as though City Officials seem to feel everything was followed according to protocol. Would it be so out of line to say Whoops! That may be a light way of saying it, but at least an admission that something went awry that night and will be corrected at the unfortunate expense of the Zerby’s would probably provide some comfort for even them. For NOW, most of us are afraid to leave the house and it’s not because of gangs …
There is a culture in law enforcement that either implicitly or explicitly promotes the use of deadly force in what some may call a “shoot first/ask questions later” policy. There is absolutely no justification for any such policy if only 3 officers have been killed in the line of duty since 1/1/2007. During that same period, LA area law enforcement has killed over 150 human beings. That’s quite a disparity and certainly wouldn’t justify any “shoot first” policy, whether express or implied by police agency administration or with the rank and file. Moreover, many of the newer officers have returned from war zones abroad and are landing in law enforcement agencies around the nation. They have blurred the lines.
It is clear that there is a problem when the very policy of the use of deadly force can be so tragically misused, cutting down some of this nation’s best and brightest.
Greet may not be a police officer NOW. However, last summer John B. Greet was recognized by the Long Beach police for 25 years of service. I suspect he has since been fired because of the public anamosity he generates against the police due to his never ending rigorous defense of overzealous police actions.
Notice how Greet distances himself from ever having been a Long Beach Police officer, as if embarassed to be associated with the department. Greet repeatedly claims to NOT be a Long Beach police officer rather than saying he is NO LONGER a police officer. It appears Greet is either not proud of having served as a Long Beach Police officer or is attempting to mislead the public as to his past profession. Either way, it is notable.
Mr. Ruehle: I have never once “distanced (myself) from ever having been a Long Beach Police Officer,” not once, not ever. That’s simply how you choose to spin your own recurring error on this topic. You are welcome to “suspect” whatever you like however my affiliation with LBPD is something of which I am exceedingly proud of and I remain honored to have been deemed worthy to have served our community in that way during the time that I did.
When you allege that someone is something, and they deny that they are, yet you persist in insisting that they are without ever once demonstrating the basic humilty to simply ask them to clarify their comments for you, the error, sir, becomes thoroughly and entirely yours.
I never once denied having been a Long Beach Police Officer. You simply couldn’t see past your personal animosities or hear over the raucous grinding of your ever so prejudiced axe, to be able to understand just why your allegation might have been (and, in fact, was) incorrect.
Perhaps in the future you may try to be a bit more circumspect not only in what you choose to state but also how you choose state it.
We would all be wise, I think, to remember that none of us is either infallible or omniscient.That we all err and that not all of our errors are either intentional or malicious. Sometimes we just make simple and honest mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes (like that Mr. Ruehle made here) are relatively minor and fairly harmless. Others can sometimes have extremely painful and tragic consequences, but even these were often never intended and never malicious. I think we would all be wise to remember that as well.
Donna Burns: It would be pointless to deny that misconduct sometimes occurs in the law enforcement profession. In this, law enforcement is no different from any *other* profession, whether public or private in nature.
I simply suggest that police misconduct is by far the exception, rather than the blanket rule that you make it out to be. I feel confident in saying that there exists no systemic attempt to cover up misconduct within LBPD. If so, why would that department employ 14 full time, sworn and civilian employees with an FY10 adopted budget of over $2.1 million just to investigate and make recommendations to the Chief on allegations of misconduct? Internal Affairs reports directly to the Chief of Police. The Chief, like all city department heads, reports directly to the City Manager who, in turn, reports directly to our elected council and mayor who, in turn, report directly to the voters.
Beyond the direct police department oversight, the city’s Civilian Police Complaint Commission (CPCC) also exists to monitor and invesitgate police misconduct in Long Beach. Mandated by the city charter, the CPCC receives, administers and investigates allegations of police misconduct with emphasis on complaints of excessive force, false arrest, and complaints of racial and/or sexual overtones.” The CPCC operates entirely outside, but with the full cooperation of, the police department and has subpoena authority through the city attorney’s office.
Beyond LBPD Internal Affairs and CPCC the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office employs an entire Division that is responsible for monitoring and investigaing police officer misconduct in the county and to investigate any incident (suh as Zerby) in which police officers use force that results in the death of another. The District Attorney is also an elected official who also answers directly to the voters in the county.
As mentioned, it would be pointless to deny that misconduct sometimes occurs in the law enforcement profession. When it does occur, however, considerable efforts are made to identify it, investigate it and address it in the manner prescribed by policy and current law.
Police fear ‘war on cops.’ Read the article at the below link. Maybe its for good reason.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41235743/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
I think it’s fair to say that the forced histrionics of the dead man’s sister (sorry ma’am. you were ridiculous) at the press conference doesn’t work too well in fostering much cooperation of the LBPD. They know they have a large civil lawsuit in the making, and they aren’t going to release any information until they have their ducks in a row. Expecting LBPD “good will” outside of how our legal system works is asinine.
Implying that the victim was some kind of family man (he had an eight year old son!), while leaving out that he was allegedly a committed longtime alcoholic, is an unfortunate style of “cherry-picking” facts that Greater Long Beach should consider reviewing, if they want to be taken seriously.
And finally… advocating the release of the officers name in the middle of this youtube/twitter/facebook inferno? Really, Dave? Really?
Yeah… the people who join Facebook, by definition, are really a crowd that likes to think things through before acting… Let’s empower them to do what they do best by releasing the officers name before the end of an official inquiry. Yeah…
And what do you believe that “good reason” might be, Mr. Ruehle?
Do tell us what “good reason” there could *possibly* be to specifically target those that society has willingly and knowingly placed in positions of authority to keep the peace and enforce the laws that we have, through our constitutional process of advice and consent, chosen to enact for the overall good of our civil society?
With all due respect to Mr. Groeninger, spokesperson for the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund though he may be, the fact that “there seems to be a type of criminal out there looking to thwart authority” is not any sort of revelation.
Cops have been specifically targeted for as long as their have been cops. This is so because in this greatest of nations the police represent the executive branch of civil government and as such, in a free and civil society, they are the most visible and present representatives of civil authority.
Some people just do not like the idea that someone has been duly-appointed in authority over them, and so they rebel against that authority. And sometimes that rebellion takes the form of violence. This is not news, it is simply the way of things in a world populated by people who are, by their very nature, evil.
But although this has always been *a* reason for specifically targeting cops, it has never been a *good* reason, Mr. Ruehle. Because there can never be a “good reason” for specifically targeting cops who in all but the rarest of cases are only doing their best to do the jobs we have all asked that they do…the jobs we are, ourselves, unable and/or unwilling to do.
You seem to have a different point of view. I’m all ears…
“I am not ‘lbpd.’” -J Greet
In the context of a discussion like this, to not then reveal that you *were* LBPD is a relevant omission.
No less so than is Richard Armijo’s choice to not disclose his close relationship with the Zerby family in the exchanges here:
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/slain-mans-family-holds-rally-at-lbpd-headquarters#comments
In both instances, the omission undercuts the credibility of the speaker’s posts.
Hello Jason. Wish you read things a little more closely, but as you implied, the people who participate in this inferno of social media—and you submit a comment or three on nearly everything on this site (some even on point and free enough of attacks on children to be publishable)—cannot be counted upon to think things through before pouring more gas on the fire. The most-amazing aspect of your mocking attack on Doug Zerby’s grieving sister in your last post is that it is typical of you.
Panglonymous: You are as entitled to your anonymous opinion as anyone else here. However, I am not responsible for either the cognitive imprecision or the abject ignorance of others.
All Mr. Ruehle, howardx, you, or anyone else had to do was simply ask me to clarify why I was denying a current and direct affiliation with LBPD. I would have been only too happy to explain. But no one asked.
Mr. Ruehle and howardx were too busy persisting in *insisting* that they were correct to even consider the *possibility* that they were not and to wonder *why* they were not. In other words, they failed to think critically about the matter, just as they do on many other matters…in my humble opinion.
This is why I tried to caution them that we do not always know what we think we know, and it is sometimes best to tuck our egos away for a moment and try to ask a simple question once in a while. In this way we sometimes gain clearer understanding.
I think whether or not you or anyone else finds my posts to be credible should be based more upon the reasonableness of what I say and the facts I present to support my positions, and less upon whether or not I am, or once was, a cop.
I have said I am not a cop, and I am not. I have said that I do not presume to speak for LBPD and that I never have and this is also true. To have served this city as a cop for more than two decades was, for me, a distinct honor and privelege and I am extremely grateful that I had that opportunity.
Some, like Mr. Ruehle, howardx, and others like to allege that this past affiliation makes me somehow biased or prejudiced. I would say that it simply affords me a greater level of awareness of circumstances surrounding law enforcement critical incidents than others who have not so served. I like to believe that I can fairly evaluate a situation with a mind that is open to *all* of the facts surrounding that situation.
I am not entirely convinced that Mr. Ruehle or howardx can honestly make the same claim.
Greet,
Rather than duplicating your 7 paragraphs and multiple circular arguments to convey a simple message, it is much easier to ask you to blow it out of you know where.
Mr. Ruehle, you are welcome to ask anything you like. However I think you are a much more effective and convincing communicator when you manage to treat others with courtesy and respect.
Mr. Greet
“…it is sometimes best to tuck our egos away for a moment and try to ask a simple question once in a while. In this way we sometimes gain clearer understanding.”
Agreed.
Is it fair to say there is a continuing brotherhood and allegiance between veteran officers and those still on active duty from the same department?
Substitute “retired” for “veteran.”
Panglonymous: I believe there usually, though not always, exists a brother/sisterhood and allegiance between retired officers and those still on active duty from the same department.
For your part, would you say it is possible for retired officers to be capable of rational deduction and reasonable and circumspect consideration on issues such as Zerby, despite the potential existence of such an allegiance and brother/sisterhood?
The assumption, at least from folks like Mr. Ruehle, seems to be that because I happen to be retired police officer, I cannot possibly consider incidents like Zerby in a reasonable, rational and fair manner. Yet not one thing I have said on this matter, here or anywhere else, has indicated that I have as yet drawn *any* conclusions whatsoever on the matter. I have neither excused NOR condemned the officers (I do not even know who they were.) I have neither excused NOR condemned Zerby.
All I have asked -repeatedly- is that we all try to be patient, allow the concurrent investigations to conclude, the results to be made known, and only then attempt to determine how best to proceed. Is this really so biased or prejudiced a position for a person to hold, retired cop or not? If so I would very much appreciate any respectful effort you might care to make in helping me to understand how.
People like Mr. Ruehle, howardx and some others have clearly already made up their minds on this matter. I suggest that we avoid doing so until we know as many of the facts as it is possible to know.
Between us, who seems the more reasonable and unbiased to you?
I don’t recall that alcoholism is a capital crime??
What would these self-righteous people say if this were their child?
Comforting to know that the D.A. hires retired cops (LBPD among them) as investigators.
Greet FREQUENTLY accuses people who don’t agree with him of failing to adequately research subjects before posting an opinion. Let me point everyone to a posting that highlights the lame research Greet does prior to posting his opinion. Please read Daryl Supernaw’s comment in the attached article and you decide you how credible Greet’s arguments are.
http://www.lbreport.com/11ops/daryl/movie.htm
The exchange above might be a predictable outcome of a vaccuum, but I think most will agree that no one wishes for someone to lose their life when officers are called out. I am not conversant on the facts behind the officers’ actions, nor, really, can anyone be, save those officers, their supervisors and command staff and the legal folks who are necessarily examining this. Is a vaccuum a good thing? Usually not from the point of view of a communications strategy. But it is also true that you cannot be called stupid for what you DON’T say, and when one is confronted — as is our city — with an issue involving a death at the hands of officers, it is likely the best policy to hold all comment barring a release of facts. It is clear that emotions are high on this, and everyone’s hearts go out to the family of Mr. Zerby. But difficult as it may be, I would hope that leaders and residents alike give the police the time needed to complete a thorough investigation and for command staff and city officials to determine how to move forward. Myself, I would hope that involves a personal meeting between the family and Chief to go over the findings of investigators and for all sides to find a solution that acknowledges the pain and loss of the Zerby family and the need for policing to take in the lessons from this tragedy.
I really do not understand why the character (whatever it may have been) is an issue for some in the murder of an unarmed man. It doesn’t matter what he did in his PERSONAL life, he was gunned down in cold blood and he was NOT ARMED. PERIOD. No one here knows anything concrete about his personal life and they don’t need to. What people do need to concern themselves with is the actions of the LBPD that day, and the position they took afterward. Which in my opinion is that they twisted facts, blew up a picture of the wrong garden sprayer to poster size, and changed their story midstream.
Doug Zerby was not breaking the law, he was sitting on a porch waiting for a friend to come home and he was welcome to be on that friends property. An overdone neighbor jumped the gun (sorry) and reported in error that he had a gun, that neighbor is in part responsible for the murder of Doug. Obviously, the police, or at least one officer was wound a little too tight and started the barrage of bullets. This is a murder, it is an outrage and it is heart breaking for Dougs loved ones. The police have screwed up, majorly, and instead of admitting their error, they have chosen to try and cover up, make excuses for their actions and in doing so have magnified the grief for the Zerbys. There are alot of heartless posters on these sites, people who haven’t stopped to think what if it had happened to someone in their family, how they would feel. Trying to discuss the facts that are known, and leave out jabs at Dougs character and the Zerby family would be the thing to aim for here.
For those of you unfamiliar with how Long Beach conducts its business, the Police Department will NEVER release the officer’s names and the results of an officer involved shooting investigation unless the family sues the city. I have observed this firsthand through my community involvement over the past several years.
For those of you who say WAIT for the police investigation to conclude before drawing any conclusion, you will be waiting for a very long time and will only find out the investigation results when it goes to court. By then, many years will have passed and the public uproar will have been silenced due to lack of information.
When a Long Beach police officer mowed down a mother of four young children while in a crosswalk on Ocean Blvd in 2006, it was front page news. Up until it went to court three years later, the police refused to release any investigation information and continued to claim the case was still under investigation. In court, it was revealed the police department spokes people had lied to the press about the facts of the case. Soon after, the city quickly settled with the family. While the press readily published the front page story told to them by the police on the day of the incident, the press later failed to publish how the police department’s story had been all LIES. They also failed to publish how the police officer who killed the poor woman was sooooo broke up about what he had done, that he returned to work the very next shift without missing a beat. What’s frightening about this is the police knew the truth, but still allowed a negligent officer who had killed a woman with his police car to return to work the very next day to possibly do the same thing over again.
The police strategy is to withhold ALL information from the public on ALL officer involved shootings in order to protect the officers and the city from law suits, no matter how wrong or negligent the officer may have been or how much danger the officer poses to the public. It is police policy to not release the results of an investigation until the investigation has been completed. Therefore, the results are NEVER released in an officer involved shooting because the police claim to NEVER conclude their investigation.
Good luck waiting for the police to release the results of the investigation. It won’t ever happen. And that’s the way they want it. Thus, Long Beach Police are able to KILL people and not be held accountable.
If you believe the Los Angeles District Attorney is investigating this case, please consider the following:
1. District Attorney Cooley’s father was a police officer.
2. District Attorney Cooley’s brother was hired by Long Beach Mayor Foster to be lead attorney at Southern California Edison when Foster was President of SCE.
3. District Attorney Cooley and his brother have contributed the maximum to Mayor Foster’s election campaigns.
4. Long Beach Police Chief McDonnell was Mayor Foster’s personal choice to replace Chief Batts.
Good luck getting a fair shake from District Attorney Cooley.
Mr. Ruehle: The city and the police department are *prevented* from releasing personnel information concerning its employees (and constrained even more so where public safety employees are concerned) *as a matter of law.* You persist in taking the city and the department to task for doing nothing other than following the law in this matter. If you dislike those laws, work to have them amended or abolished. The D.A. is another matter and I have previously linked one example where that office published the results of a tragic LAPD OIS, including the names of *all* of the officers involved. It takes time for this to occur, but occur it does and this is why I encourage people to try to be patient. As to the piece in LBReport you have referred to: I did, indeed make some mistakes of fact in my comments on that article. Perhaps you can pardon me for being human, perhaps not. However -and although you seem to have conveniently neglected to mention this- I also stated several times during my comments: “unless I am mistaken…” You see, unlike you, Mr. Ruehle, I openly allow for the possibility that I may, in fact, be mistaken about something. And when I’m wrong I openly admit it and thank those who have helped to educate me. I did so in the LBR piece as well, but, unfortunately, *that* comment wasn’t posted by the moderator. So I wrote to Mr. Supernaw directly and said much the same thing. I can only hope he received the email and now understands that I was in no way questioning either his experience or his integrity. I was simply offering comment to a story he authored on a site that openly invites comments from the public.
To all: I have offered all I can offer here. I have done nothing but respectfully suggest that we all try to be patient and await the results of the concurrent investigations before drawing any conclusions on this beyond the obvious one that this incident was a tragedy for all who were directly and indirectly involved. If this counsel seems unreasonable to some who prefer the “condemn first and ask questions later” crowd, then so be it. I hope the friends and family of Zerby are able to find peace and, if it proves that the officers acted improperly, are able to achieve a redress of their grievances in court as is their right. I also hope the officers involved are doing ok. Employing lethal force in the course and scope of one’s official duties cannot be pleasant nor a particularly easy thing to deal with afterward. I’m praying for everone directly and indirectly involved in this tragic incident. I hope others are too.
Greet, you one of the few I take to task for misleading people as I have known you to do for years. The point is THE RESULTS OF A LONG BEACH POLICE INVESTIGATION OF AN OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING WILL NOT BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. No matter how patient people are before forming an opinion, they will NEVER see the investigation results unless they are a person of standing that can file a law suit to see the results.
Like many others, I do and have been asking questions. However, the Police Department that killed this man will never release any of the answers to the many questions. You call that condemning. I call it cover-up. Why don’t we take a poll and see how many agree with me?
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Patrick T. Madden ruled last Wednesday names of Long Beach Long Beach police officers involved in shootings can not be denied by the public (see below link). According to Judge Madden, “speculative or generalized alarms over safety concerns will not suffice.” He also wrote that the release of the officers names “would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” and that the names of officers involved in shootings was “not privileged.” Long Beach City Atty. Robert Shannon joined the union in its appealing Judge Madden’s decision.
The City Attorney takes his direction from the Mayor and City Council. In effect, our ELECTED OFFICIAL have joined the police in keeping the officers names from the public. Some how this doesn’t sound like the increased government transparency Mayor Foster and Councilman DeLong talk about at each city council meeting. Apparently, increased transparency applies to everyone else but them. Maybe its time the public start coming down on their City Councilperson.
A Superior Court judge has ruled the names must be released. How ironic is it that the people entrusted to uphold the law refuse to do so when it applies to them. It appears the Long Beach Police consider themselves to be ABOVE THE LAW.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-police-names-20110121,0,5801604.story
Does everyone understand that our Mayor and City Council have directed the City Attorney to SPEND TAXPAYER’S MONEY to file a law suit to prevent the names of the police officers who shot Doug Zerby from being disclosed.
Furthermore, after loosing the law suit, the Mayor and City Council directed the City Attorney to continue SPENDING TAXPAYER’S MONEY to file an appeal to the Superior Court Judge Madden’s ruling that the names must be disclosed.
Is that how we want our ELECTED OFFICIAL to spend TAXPAYER’S MONEY? We are closing libraries and parks due to the budget. Meanwhile, our ELECTED OFFICIALS feel free to ignore a judge’s order and finance a cover-up.
Mr. Ruehle: As I’m sure you are aware, all court rulings are subject to appeal unless and until those appeals are denied or the ruling is issued by SCOTUS. We should learn this Monday or shortly therafter whether or not a stay will be granted pending an appeal.
The city and the POA have no less a right to file such an appeal as any other entity who seeks judicial review of a court case.
POA Atty. Trott is entirely correct that information in public safety personnel files is exempt from FOIA disclosure.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/832.7.html
In 1999 then State A.G. Bill Lockyer went so far as to issue an official opinion that the disclosure of peace officer personnel records in violation of Penal Code section 832.7 may even constitute a *crime* under the terms of Government Code section 1222 if the conditions of the latter statute are met.
http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/99-503.pdf
That said, all law is subject to challenge, appeal and re-interpretation and just such an appeals process is in progress here.
None of this information is “misleading” in any way, Mr. Ruehle. It is simple, cold, hard, statutory fact. Please review the links for yourself. If after having done so, you remain unconvinced, then all I can say is that you are no less entitled to your opinion than anyone else.
I believe Judge Madden has made a mistake here, one that I hope will be rectified, in court, in the next few days.
There is considerable statutory law and court precedent to support Atty. Trott’s position and, to the best of my knowledge, zero statutory law or case precedent that places a burden on the city or the police union to justify keeping the names secret.
If Judge Madden did not err in his decision (if a stay is not granted and if the decision is not reversed upon appeal), then I’m certain the city will fully comply with whatever final decision the courts render, as it should.
While I appreciate the Times contention that the names are necessary for an “independent examination of the conduct and tactics of police officers” I think such an investigation, if it occurs, should be conducted *after* the concurrent official investigations conclude, and not while they are still in progress.
Greet FREQUENTLY accuses people who don’t agree with him of failing to adequately research subjects before posting an opinion. Let me point everyone to a posting that highlights the lame research Greet does prior to posting his opinion. Please read Daryl Supernaw’s comment in the attached article and you decide you how credible Greet’s arguments are.
http://www.lbreport.com/11ops/daryl/movie.htm
First we have a death. Then we have a deadening. A tragedy exponentially amplified unto silence.
Mr Ruehle, you might consider being careful about setting arbitrary standards for credibility, especially when you are not likely to be able to meet them yourself.
It is my sincere hope that Mr. Supernaw saw the final comments I sent to him on that column but if he did not, there is little I can do about it. He and I both made some mistakes of fact there and, for my part, I freely admit to mine and to being happy for the opportunity to have learned something from him.
Panglonymous: I fully agree and I apologize that some here persit in tryong to change the focus of our attention onto me, rather than allowing it to remain on the topic at hand. As before, my thoughts and prayers go out to all who are dorectly and indirectly involved in this tragedy, even (or perhaps especially) Zerby himself.
Mr Ruehle, you might consider being careful about setting arbitrary standards for credibility, especially when you are not likely to be able to meet them yourself.
It is my sincere hope that Mr. Supernaw saw the final comments I sent to him on that column but if he did not, there is little I can do about it. He and I both made some mistakes of fact there and, for my part, I freely admit to mine and to being happy for the opportunity to have learned something from him.
Panglonymous: I fully agree and I apologize that some here persist in trying to change the focus of the attention onto me, rather than allowing it to remain on the actual topic of this article. As before, my thoughts and prayers go out to all who are directly and indirectly involved in this tragedy, even (or perhaps especially) Zerby himself. Whatever comes of the investigations and whatever is eventually settled in court, none of that will bring Zerby back to his family and friends. Perhaps that is the greatest tragedy of all.
Q: If Control’s control is absolute, why does Control need to control?
A: Control needs time.
Q: Is Control controlled by its need to control?
A: Yes.
-Ah Pook, the Destroyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C5XuylNFLo
When I become Death,
Death is the seed from which I grow…