In a semi-related development, I still miss Bouchee’s.

The best part is where city attorney points out that the MMJ ordinance is against federal law.

Schou’s report is like another typical day in seedy LB: creepy City Hall biz as usual.

Like it or not, however, some aspects of our police operations are considered both restricted and confidential. People like Ruehle just do not always have a valid need to know every aspect how our police do what they do. This seems to drive people like Ruehle absolutely bonkers, because they unreasonably believe they are somehow personally *entitled* to direct and specific answers to any and every question they ask along these lines. This is just not so.

What we do have, are elected representatives who the police department *is* fully answerable to. This is another reason why we must take our local electoral responsibilities much more seriously than many of us seem to…so that we can be assured of competent and scrupulous oversight of our police department and, indeed, every other aspect of city operations.

I’m just operating off press accounts (which I’ve followed closely but, admittedly, not exhaustively) and memory, so I don’t know if anyone has actually put these questions to LBPD management:

“Have any policies or procedures changed as a result of the PD’s and the DA’s investigations of the Zerby incident?

“Are you anticipating doing so in the future, at some other stage of the investigation process?

“If you do make changes or initiate changes in the future, will you inform the press when you do?

“Is there anything in the reports that troubles you, or do you consider that the actions of the officers are exemplary and beyond reproach?

“And, if you do think the officers actions are exemplary and you do not see the need for departmental policy or procedure changes, can you walk us through the actions of each officer involved in that shooting and tell us how they conformed at each stage to the policies and procedures that you consider exemplary in preventing needless loss of civilian life when officers respond to a call?”

The last one in particular remains unsatisfactorily answered in the minds of thoughtful people in town trying to make sense of the responses given in the wake of the release of the investigation reports. The officers’ failure to identify themselves is still seeking a sensible and satisfactory explanation to the public. I’m not saying there can’t be one – just that I haven’t seen it yet.

If police officials are really satisfied that the responding officers did everything they could to prevent Zerby’s death, they should be able to answer that last question all day long in whatever depth of detail the questioner wants to pursue. That has not happened.

I’m guessing that the last question will be asked repeatedly of the responding officers at trial. I’m guessing that the consequences of providing answers will go into the calculation of whether or not to settle before trial. I’m guessing that if the case is settled before trial, the public may never get satisfactory answers to the questions listed above.

If the Zerby family is demanding in their suit a system of greater police disclosure and accountability in Long Beach, I’d support their efforts to have the case go to trial. Ideally, I’d like to see city officials decide such a system was the right thing to do and set it up without the Zerby influence, but that may be too much to ask.

Thanks for the support!!

The *quality* of political speech, on the other hand, has less to do with money, and everything to do with character. If a candidate has a sufficient quality of character, no lack of funds can prevent him or her from running his or her campaign accordingly. Conversely, if a candidate has a character detriment, no abubdance of funds can make his or her campaign seem of good character when it is not.

We should focus less upon how much money a campaign does or does not have and more upon the candidate’s character and abilities, as evidenced by what they say and what the facts can prove, rather than how loudly or how often they say it.

@US: I completely agree that an expensive trial is not the only “possible” way to determine if something is amiss and I never said or even implied that this was so. LBPD changes policies and procedures all the time and for many reasons and not only because it is compelled to by a court decision. As in any profession, best practices in law enforcement are always being developed and refined. That’s part of what makes law enforcement a profession, rather than simply an occupation.

But an expensive trial is not the only “possible” way to determine if something is amiss, and not necessarily the one that will most assure citizens of Long Beach that their PD is appropriately concerned with their safety. I’d like to think that the level of “amiss”-ness would not have to rise to the level of a civil trial in order for the public to learn of it and for police professionals to deal with it and let us know what they’ve done. I’ve outlined above what I think such a process could look like.

This is a political question, ultimately, and really not a police question specifically, though I think a community is poorly policed when it is poorly informed about its police activities. If the Zerby suit includes establishing mechanisms to improve public reporting of police investigations, I would approve, though I don’t know if the court would have to find for the Zerby’s substantially in order to have this improvement to LB government imposed.

To be clear — I noisily and clamorously support the good work of good officers in a good PD. Silent support is rarely my style. I’m much more interested in providing maximum opportunity to drive out people unsuited to police work and the life and death decisions officers have to make at a moment’s notice. I’d rather err on the side of airing out the horrific tragedies in which police officers find themselves taking part.

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.

I rarely go to the movies, but when I do, it’s to the Art Theater for quality independent art films, or the occassional quality Hollywood studio film (VERY rare).

As seldom are my film-going soirees, I truly appreciate and applaud Logan Crowe’s work with the Art Theatre and will consider catching another of his Cinematheque membership drives he has planned for this month of February.

This morning, I spotted 4 Parks Dept. work vehicles simultaneously descended on the Park; one workman was busy cleaning out the currrently shut-off decorative fountain at the Park’s north end near Broadway, another was repairing/painting the wood sign identifying Bixby Park and which is positioned adjacent to Ocean Blvd., a third was repairing a swing in the kids playground, and as I was exiting the Park, a fourth maintenance vehicle appeared, hauling an industrial-grade steam cleaning machine (what the steam cleaner was used for, I don’t know; maybe to sanitize the skanky restrooms)

Perhaps all this recent whirlwind of TLC being showered on Bixby Park is the successful product of Claudia’s “tactful activism”. Or not. Maybe it’s all election year politics and Suja Lowenthal will try to claim most, if not all, of the credit for the Park’s sudden upsurge in maintenance and improvements activity during her re-election bid for the 2nd District city council seat.

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.

I think this is why successful candidates in the current round of council elections will be distancing themselves from direct affiliation with LBPD.

The public knows about Zerby, even outside of The Shore, and has a sense that those aligned with the PD, those who might most closely identify with police officers rather than the public they would be elected to serve, would be poor choices for service on the council at this point in our city’s history of police actions.

Does the public want a councilmember who is concerned with standing in silent solidarity with police officers? or does the public want someone more concerned about the accidental killing of their child by LBPD officers?

Police management by court order?

No other “legitimate” way for a concerned citizenry to enact changes in the public operation of a public agency charged with serving the public – except through the business end of a lawsuit?

I’m willing to believe that LBPD officials are open to the idea that there may be problems with how the use of lethal force by LBPD officers is investigated and reported to the public.

Organizations going through troubling times survive and thrive by having a group of managers who don’t all think alike. I’m actually willing to put the chief in the group that thinks LBPD currently does a poor job of explaining itself to a public that wants the fullest possible accounting of instances when its officers judge that they need to kill someone.

Large organizations budget for being sued. It’s a cost of doing business. But good organizations also take cost-effective steps to reduce the possibility and expense of lawsuits. And they certainly don’t rely on the courts to tell them the smart thing to do.

Does the Zerby shooting mean that current LBPD management has judged that letting families like the Zerbys sue them for killing their loved one is cheaper than putting some other investigation and public communication mechanism in place in the event of lethal officer shootings?

That Zerby’s killing was the natural result of cost/benefit analysis at LBPD Headquarters?

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.

To quote from another forum:

Pan: “Who does the average beat cop most identify with would you say?”

JBG: “The average officer I know, most closely identifies with other officers who actually do the work and face all of the challenges their profession offers.”

http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/da-rules-zerby-shooting-justified#comment_1947987

Military combat veterans often answer that question the same way.

Is this a constructive cultural condition to promote, accept or ignore?

I love the wonderful pic of a beaming Claudia Schou.

Can these improvements be attributed to the lobbying efforts of Friends Of Bixby Park or is it due to the fact it’s an election year for the 2nd District city council seat? After the election, regardless of who wins the seat, will the Park once again backslide into graffiti-marred picnic tables and more littered grounds?

Perhaps Claudia Schou can answer those questions on “Greater Long Beach Radio with Dave Wielenga”. If I’m able to remember, I’ll be sure to tune in tomorrow evening.

SInce the two-phase city-wide ban on single-use plastic grocery bags took effect last summer and this Jan. 1, I’m delighted and thrilled to report plastic bag litter, formerly sourced at the neighboring Rite-Aid and corner liquor stores, has disappeared from the park and nearby streets.

That’s the problem with the LBPD today. It’s not that they are a failed organization – it’s that they are perceived as antagonistic toward public interest in their activities, though possibly only because they are operating as best they can given their current legal structure and responsibilities. The Zerby case puts this on maximum display.

The LBPD’s current structure and responsibilities need to be changed to facilitate greater public accountability and reporting in this gravest area of police activity. And it seems to me the simplest way to do this is to create a police review panel along the lines I’ve suggested.

It’s ultimately irresponsible, and wasteful of resources, for the city to rely on the Zerby family to pursue a lawsuit in order for citizens to gain greater confidence in LBPD’s ability to use deadly force responsibly. Don’t you agree?

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.

Ulttimately, the quality of public debate on this topic as council elections approach will give us a partial answer. Right now, the council is realistically all that LB citizens have in regard to changing how LBPD does business. I think many thoughtful people would appreciate voting for a candidate who wants to do something constructive along these lines.

And this is without slamming the current chief. He may be caught in a hard place with these shootings. He does have to answer to those who may prefer him to remain quiet for their own political aspirations, he may be guided professionally to keep mum as a way of protecting the resources of the department from being taken in a lawsuit, he may have an instinctual protective response toward those who work for him and know that department morale is dependent on this.

But all of these concerns make him unable to directly answer citizens (and Zerby family members) who are concerned that their police force is employing people who may be dangerously unsuited for police work. Even worse – it gives the appearance that he is protecting them and sending them back onto the street, puting anyone within city limits at greater risk of being mistakenly injured or killed by officers.

Good policework, in my understanding, is made stronger when these perceptions are at a minmum in the community, when those who are policed can look at an officer and have no questions about their competance or suitability for dealing with people in tense situations.

An effective panel, insulated from day-to-day politics, can help to create this positive environment and could be welcomed by a police leader. But the same pressures on he chief listed above would probably keep him from leading the charge on this, even though it could, on balance, make his job easier. He might readily back the play of newcomiers to the council who want to get this done.

Just to prime the pump (and provide the first target), I’d say appoint the panel, make them retired judges, have an odd number of them and have different civic groups (POA, too) appoint them on a rotating, overlapping basis. Have their decisions bear some legal weight on the continued deployment of those investigated. Ideally give them the power to dismiss, but if that’s too much, keep it in-house managerial (the power to sit officers on a block of ice downtown and see if they get up to leave). Give them the power to follow up on how involved officers are doing after the incident or review and report publicly on the effectiveness of corrective measures taken. Have them come up with a transparent procedure for when names of officers involved in incidents would be released. The findings and work records of the panel would, of course, be public records. Have a new officer orientation segment devoted to informing newcomers about how the panel works, spelling out for them when the panel will make their names public should a weapon be discharged.

We need good cops employed in a good police force. To guarantee this, we need transparent, public review of the legal killing, or attempted killing, of others done on our behalf.

name one local incident where it has happened.