THE PEOPLE ARE NOT PLEASED: PROTEST COP KILLING OF UNARMED MAN
By Ben Baeder
DOWNEY (Via DowneyBeat.com)—More than 150 people marched Saturday from the intersection of Paramount Blvd. and Imperial Highway—where Michael Nida was shot to death Oct. 22 by a Downey Police Department officer—to City Hall draw attenton to the need for improved police policies and accountability.
As marchers ranging from small children on scooters to elderly anti-war activists walked more than two miles along Paramount Blvd and Firestone Blvd, cars were squeezed cars into one lane and traffic to backed up for blocks. Nonetheless, dozens of inconvenienced motorists honked and offered support to protestors.
The march was organized by the Campaign to Stop Police Violence, which is a project of the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition. Organizer Doug Kauffman of ANSWER said police officers are rarely forced to explain in criminal court how and why they killed someone. The District Attorney almost never files criminal charges against police officers or deputies, he said.
“They kill, then they hide behind a veil of secrecy,” he said.
He hoped the march would let people in Downey know that citizens were watching police.
He also said the march was to support the families of Steven Bours, who was killed by Downey Police in March as he walked on Paramount Boulevard with a hatchet or hatchet-like tool. That shooting took place within a few hundred feet of where Nida was killed.
14 Comments
The Mayor and Long Beach City Council have asked justices to overturn a Superior Court ruling that the city of Long Beach must provide the names of officers involved in shootings as requested by a Los Angeles Times Public Records Act information request.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-police-officer-names-20120127,0,7553910.story?track=rss
An attorney for The Times contends the City of Long Beach and the Police union, although separate parties to the lawsuit, were ‘colluding’ to skirt the city’s obligation under public records laws and indefinitely keep secret the identities of law enforcement officers who had exercised lethal force.
What this means is that Mayor Foster’s administration is continuing to spend TAXPAYERS MONEY to withhold the names of police officers who kill Long Beach TAXPAYERS. What are they hiding?????
Rather than increasing the fight against increasing gang activity, why is Mayor Foster and City Council spending OUR MONEY to hide the identity of trigger-happy police officers???????
The City places a higher priority on shielding the names of officers who kill TAXPAYERS than protecting TAXPAYERS from crime.
@ Ruehle: Unnecessary name-calling aside, do you accept that violent retaliation against police officers can sometimes be a valid concern in these cases? If so, do you think it is reasonable that we try to guard against that as far as possible? If so, how would you propose we do so, if not by withholding names, even temporarily?
Do you agree that LBPD does not keep this information entirely secret and that we have elected people to represent us in government (City Councilmembers and a Mayor) who have access to these names?
I do not think violent retaliation against police officers should be considered a valid concern in *all* such cases cases.
Perhaps we can develop some sort of compromise method for making determinations about whether officers names shall be released to the general public and, if so, when.
Come on, Ruehle. Anyone can whine, snivel, and name-call. You better than most! How about offering some constructive solutions?
“do you accept that violent retaliation against police officers can sometimes be a valid concern in these cases”
name one local incident where it has happened.
why dont officers suffer this mythical “violent retaliation” after they testify in court against someone? just another question for you to disregard.
@x: I never intentionally disregard questions that are sincere in their intent and courteous in their delivery.
I am personally aware of many threats of violent retaliation against LBPD personnel, sometimes specifically named, sometimes directed at LBPD officers in general, that have been made over the course of my recently concluded career. Such threats are routinely issued by the leaders of violent criminal street gangs and most often issued from prison (which is where most of the veteran gang shot-callers reside.)
I cannot say whether any of these threats have been actually carried out against LBPD or not. I do know that there have been a significant number of acts of violent retaliation perpetrated and attempted agains police officers throughout the U.S, including in California.
Any such incident rightly puts *all* law enforcement in the nation on their guard and reminds us that society cannot take any such threat lightly.
Officers testify in court because it is their sworn duty to do so and it is not a duty that can be avoided because the officer might be placed in danger as a result. Releasing names in the context of this discussion is a different matter.
I think it should be handled case-by-case. Sometimes there is no reasonable officer-safety concern and in those cases the names should be released.
Sometimes there *is* a valid officer safety concern and in those cases the names should be withheld until such time as the perceived threat can be mitigated.
“I do know that there have been a significant number of acts of violent retaliation perpetrated and attempted agains police officers throughout the U.S, including in California.”
your case would be bolstered by providing statistics or a link. i simply do not believe that there is any great amount of “violent retaliation” happening, the media would be all over it if it was. for the record i am referring to actual violence being used against officers not jailhouse punks shooting their mouths off.
x: A simple boolean search will reveal a number of reports of police officers specifically targetted around the country, usually in retaliation for their efforts to enforce the law. This story in California may help get you started:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/police-booby-traps-california_n_505453.html
In my view, if the average person cannot readily find these stories on his or her own, they either are not trying very hard, or they aren’t much interested in learning the truth of the matter.
Jailhouse punks do not concern me much. All they really have left are their mouths and they cannot do much, if any, real harm with them. Veteran gang shot-callers in prison are quite another matter and should not be so readily dismissed.
im aware of the booby trap deal, thats why i made the statement i did, it got tons of media coverage, multiple news stories on ktla etc. the fact that one incident happened in no way shows any kind of pattern, show me a case where violent retaliation has happened to an officer who killed someone in the line of duty, that is the issue being discussed i believe. in my opinion our rights as taxpayers are being violated by the police union’s mania for secrecy and a city council who will kowtow to that mania for a political endorsement.
X: I think you are being disingenuous. I said that I know that there have been a significant number of acts of violent retaliation perpetrated and attempted against police officers throughout the U.S, including in California.
You asked for examples. I provided one to you and explained how you could find others for yourself. Now you presume to expect me to continue to do your research for you. *I’ve* done *mine* and found that it proves *my* premise.
If *you* seek to refute my premise, please conduct your *own* research and let *me* know what *you* learn. If you won’t, I can reasonably deduce that you are really not interested in learning the facts as I stated them.
As to our rights as taxpayers in this case, I would agree that the taxpayers have a “right” to feel confident that their police force is serving them as professionally and competently as is reasonable. I disagree, however, that releasing these names to the general public serves that goal in all cases. Contrary to various assertions, these names are *not* (are never) completely secret. They just arent always made public. They are known to (or knowable by) various government electees and appointees.
Bigger picture time: We do not live in a pure democracy. We elect officials to represent our interests in government. If we allow any special interest group (POA or otherwise) to improperly influence our election decisions, then the error is ours (the voters) not theirs (the special interest groups.)
If our government electees are not representing us well, then the error is likewise ours in allowing them to remain in office after we have determined this.
In such cases it is likewise our responsibility (and no one else’s) to replace them in a lawful manner with others who will represent us better. If we do not, we (the voters) rightly and ultimately only have ourselves to blame.
fortunately the judge and i agree on the veracity of your “premise”
“The court also wrote that the union and the city failed to offer any evidence of specific threats to officers’ safety that would result from disclosure beyond “generalized safety concerns.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/names-of-officers-in-shootings.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&
notice i include a link to the information i am quoting.
x: Thanks for the link. I am aware of the court’s opinion in this specific case, nor have I ever disputed that specific opinion. All I have suggested is that violent retaliation against police officers can sometimes be a valid concern in these cases and that it is reasonable that we try to guard against that as far as possible.
I have also said that I do not think violent retaliation against police officers should be considered a valid concern in *all* such cases cases and that perhaps we can develop some sort of compromise method for making determinations about whether officers names shall be released to the general public and, if so, when.
I can name several recent incidents of retaliation against police over shootings:
March 2011 – Jamie hood [PC]allegedly[/PC] shot two police officers, killing one, because his brother was killed by police ten years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/US/ithaca-cop-house-burned-arson-fatal-shooting/story?id=11161809
July 2010 – an Ithaca officer’s home was burned shortly after a grand jury cleared him of wrongdoing in the shooting of an unarmed man. http://abcnews.go.com/US/ithaca-cop-house-burned-arson-fatal-shooting/story?id=11161809
August 2008 – an LAPD deputy was killed by someone whose brother was killed in a shootout with police. http://www.laweekly.com/2009-10-15/news/the-assassination-of-deputy-abel-escalante/
In all of those cases, the officers that were attacked/killed had nothing to do with the ones that shot the suspects. A search for “shot killed (revenge|retaliation|retribution) site:odmp.org” may reveal more results. But yeah, retribution against police seems rare in general.
A few corrections to my above post:
1. The arsonists in the Ithaca case remain at large.
2. The person who exacted his revenge on the LAPD deputy lost his cousin, not brother.
@Danny: Effective research and convincing evidence to support my claims, thanks.
Don’t expect people like “x” to even acknowledge, let alone accept your evidence, however. Folks like “x” aren’t about to allow trivial things like evidence or facts to influence their various pre-conceived notions.