Chief Bratton Speaks Regarding Video-Taped Arrests

Welcome Podcast Message

Chief's News Conference - November 14, 2024

Los Angeles:  Following is a synopsis of Chief Bratton's comments given at today's news conference regarding recent arrests by LAPD that were video-taped and shown on local and national television stations:

Media and public attention have been focused on two separate arrests and non-categorical uses of force (UOF) by Los Angeles Police officers, both of which had portions of the arrest process video-taped by non-involved members of the public. 

The first incident, occurring in our Hollywood Division on August 11, 2006, involved the arrest of William Cardenas, by two Los Angeles Police officers.  Cardenas is currently being held in jail awaiting trial on charges of resisting arrest and gang enhancement. 

Video-taped portions of that arrest have been repeatedly played on various media outlets.  The Department's Force Investigation Division is in the early stages of criminal and administrative investigations of that arrest and UOF.  These investigations are being monitored by the Inspector General and by the Federal Consent Decree Monitor. 

We will also cooperate with our colleagues in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  As is their practice in high-profile use of force cases, they have opened a case folder for this incident. 

The second incident, which was reported in the media today, involved the arrest of Mr. Benjamin Barker on February 8, 2005, on Venice Beach in our Pacific Division. He was initially charged with Battery on a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, Disturbing the Peace, Vandalism and Interfering with a Lawful Business.   

Both the Inspector General and the Federal Monitor have been monitoring the Venice Beach incident since August 2005, when the Federal Monitor was presented a copy of a video-tape that was taken at the time of the incident by a non-involved bystander.   I was first made aware of the video and the incident at that time and ordered the Department's Professional Standards Bureau to initiate a dual administrative/criminal investigation of that incident.   Both the administrative and criminal investigations have been completed. The Los Angeles District Attorney declined to file any criminal charges against the officers involved in Barker's arrest. 

The entire District Attorney's review has been provided to the media. Let me read just a portion of the District Attorney's conclusion:

Examination of the video-tape clearly shows that Officers David Guiterman, Victor Eguez, and Peggy Thusing did not use excessive force upon Benjamin Barker, nor did they assault him under color of authority. The officers showed remarkable restraint and demonstrated professional courtesy toward Barker despite his belligerent, threatening, and combative behavior. Barker's words and actions were resistive and obstructive. He kicked at Officer Thusing, lunged toward Sergeant Burrus, and battered Officer Guiterman by spitting on him. Barker spat inside the police car and then vandalized it during transportation to jail. The officers used that degree of force necessary to restrain Barker and maintain custody of him. 

In addition, we find that Sergeant Burrus' and Officer Guiterman's initial report of Benjamin Barker's position when the OC spray was administered was a product of mistaken recollection and not intentional misstatements of material fact.

I am currently reviewing the administrative investigation prior to a formal determination being made.  The video-tape of the Venice Beach incident has not been made public but has been shown to selective members of the media by the defense attorney representing Mr. Barker.

As Chief of the Police for the Los Angeles Police Department, I am committed to conducting the Department's duties in a transparent manner at all times. I am limited to what I can say because of prevailing federal and state laws, guidelines, and the advice I am given by our City Attorney so as to safeguard the legal and constitutional rights of both the public and our Department personnel.

In addition, while conducting my investigations, I must also adhere to other rulings, unlike the media, the public and advocates who are not precluded from rendering judgments or basing decisions on excerpts or personal opinions. 

Policing sometimes requires that force be used, but let's put it into perspective.  In Graham v. Conner (1989) the Courts have said, when police use force, the force must be objectively reasonable, with respect to the facts and circumstances the officer is facing, and without 20/20 hindsight.

The reasonableness of UOF must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

Also, what must be considered are the severity of the crime, the immediacy of the threat to the safety of the officers or others, whether the suspect is resisting arrest, or attempting to evade arrest by running away.

I reference these decisions and some of their language to reinforce that I cannot make snap judgments based solely on videos or portions of videos.  I must engage in a comprehensive and usually frustratingly long, multiple investigative process that is strictly governed by the laws I have referenced; and in the case of the LAPD, by the Federal Consent Decree. 

There is no government agency in America that has more policies, procedures, guidelines, and independent oversight with respect to use of force than the LAPD.   Our investigative process with all its limitations has been shaped by events and mistakes of the past and corrected to shape the actions of the present and future.

LAPD policy does permit officers to use less than lethal tools to help them control an uncooperative or aggressive and/or combative suspect.  Officers are trained to gain initial control of a suspect through advice, warning, or persuasion.  Sometimes the use of physical force is necessary.

Pepper Spray can be used to overcome and control a suspect's uncooperative actions when verbalization is unsuccessful and the officer reasonably believes, and can articulate why, approaching the suspect would escalate the incident to a higher level of force or result in injury to the officers or the suspect.   The primary objective of the application of force is to gain control of a suspect through the use of reasonable force.   

While police officers are authorized to use force to "overcome" resistance, the reality is that LAPD officers show great restraint. Each year, officers of this Department have over a million contacts. In 2005, we made nearly 160,000 arrests, yet the number of categorical and non-categorical uses of force have been declining.

We are a Department that is committed to going where the truth takes us, no matter how painful or disturbing that truth might be.   I would support and encourage that the public and media be vigilant but also be mindful that we cannot rush to judgment. I will not, as you should not.

Questions may be directed to Media Relations Section at 213-485-3586.

Comments

[Grunt]

In support of "the bar arm control," Deputy Chief Stephen Downing, retired, wrote a letter to The Times (Opinion, Nov. 14, 2006), expressing what those of us who were on the Department in 1982 knew when we were coerced into signing a moratorium, involuntarily giving up the use of upper body control hold: The metal PR-24, wrist-lock/twist-lock holds, pepper spray, grappling, distraction strikes, etc., are unsuitable, dangerous substitutes for getting combative suspects safely into handcuffs. This is not a case of hindsight on the part of the affected officers. Our concerns fell on deaf ears at every roll call and training session.

Downing states that "[T]he bar arm was simple and effective. The officer got behind the suspect, took control and dropped the suspect to the ground to cuff him, while at the same time protecting against the loss of his weapon...Since then there has been no effective means of suspect control provided through training."

He goes on to describe the grief that the officers and the Department have experienced as a result of the unilateral suspension of the use of upper body control holds.

I urge each one of you, including the City Councilpersons, the Police Comissioners, the Chief, the Command Staff, and the League Directors to read that letter and then act upon its implied recomendations. (see latimes.com/letters)

[The Pigeon]

Four years ago, 77th Street Division was on a trend to post well over 120 homicides. For those not familiar with 77th Street Area, it is a small 12 square mile geographic division of the Los Angeles Police Department. By December 31, 2002, the number of those killed reached 116. That number being just four less than what was projected, it was no less shocking. It is shocking that a small area can contain so much violence.

Fast forward to November 2006, and the number of homicides is shocking as well. At this time, Compstat numbers show that 58 homicides have taken place within 77th Street. In no way should the city celebrate, but some recognition should be given to the men and women who patrol the streets. Whatever the reason for the decrease in homicides, we as a public can in no way dismiss the work of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Unfortunately, an almost 50% reduction in homicides since 2002 is overshadowed by two recently released videotapes depicting LAPD arrests. Whatever opinion one has of the footage, it adds fuel to the perception of the LAPD as an occupying army that does not care much for the community. The sensational aspect of watching a use of force in action and then adding judgement to it is much too tempting. We should not expect the Los Angeles Times or the Daily News to refrain from publicizing each of these videos. The media is in the business of selling the story. And if the story depicts an impropriety, it will sell more papers and receive higher ratings.

This tells me that 60 or so lives are not important to the public, the LA Times, the Daily News, or any of the television news outlets. The story of 77th Street officers working with members of the community to decrease the rate of crime will not sell a paper. The idea that LAPD officers have a warrior mentality is absurd. But it is much more interesting to depict the police as heavy handed based on the actions of a few and the opinions of the biased.

In every percieved event of police brutality, the same names are printed in the newspapers as experts or community activists. The usual opinion is given and any culpability of the suspect is routinely dismissed. Any type of official investigation is called a cover up or a sham. The investigation becomes further evidence of the acceptance of brutality all the way up the ranks. There is no test or qualifying background check for the job of community activist. One needs only to stand in front of a camera and provide an opinion in a loud and boisterous manner. Does it matter that this opinion is false or completely biased?

And what of the 60 or so lives that go on? Where is the recognition? Where is the breaking news?

[Jim Reed]

Chief

Your position on the recent incidents is very clear. Police work is not pretty and it takes time to evaluate incidents to insure that the rights of all are protected.

However I believe you may have overlooked one point. This was made by one of LAPD's greatest spokesman, Jack Webb. He once said, "As long as the LAPD has to hire from the human race, it will not be perfect."

I believe you are doing an outstanding job and encourage you to stand tall and support your officers. They deserve no less as they are all human beings.

[Monica]

The fact is one less gang banger is off the streets thanks to a Superior Court judge who made the decision after viewing the video tape there was enough evidence to hold Cardenas over for trial. Unfortunately, many community members who are intelligent and reserving judgment until all the facts are in are stating at community meetings they support LAPD officers but are afraid to speak out. The few critics who are trying to sound like experts don't have a clue what LAPD officers are confronted with when they are assaulted, have to deal with combative suspects wrestling to take their guns away, suspects who refuse to comply with commands, suspects who strike back and in some areas officers have to deal with an unruly crowd with a mob mentality. These same critics refuse to speak out about all the homicides of innocent people and gang violence in their own backyard.

[Harry]

Now the city attny had dropped charges of RESISTING A POLICE OFFICER! UNBELIEVABLE. What is wrong with him. This was resisting. If this is true the city attny has no backbone and should be ashamed. Did this gangmember run from the police? YES. Did he resist arrest? YES. THEN WHY WAS THAT CHARGE DROPPED!!!!

[Cop]

Hairy, where does it say that the C/A dropped the 1.48 PC charge?

I know that the D/A dropped the 69 PC charge.

[sara]

Now you understand the amount of frustration civilians feel when they see videos like the recent one and Rodney King and have to deal with why theoffocers were not charged. It's a two way street here.

[K Stone]

I agree with Harry. The DA has some explaining to do to those of us who are fed up with the attacks of organized crime against law enforcement officers.

[Ashley Rogers]

Chief, Keep up the great work. Keep our focus on officer safety and public safety. I hope that the City Council approves your request for additional overtime funding so you can get the increase in crime under control in the Valley. I hope you also get the funding you need to hire the additional police officers.

Citizen from Arkansas

[j.r]

This is so typical of the D.A's office to drop or reduce charges when ever there is a controversial arrest i Los Angeles. Think about the history. It started with Rodny ( i can't stop getting in truble) King, and has continued ever since.

[Wayne]

The DA drops charges all the time. This is common criminal practice in every jurisdiction. Stop trying to micromanage and politicize everything.

If there's not a strong enough case on a particular charge, then continuing to prosecute it can weaken the case for other charges. If one charge is weak when it goes to a jury, they may tend to look unfavorably and more critically at the stronger charges.

By demanding the DA continue to press a particular charge out of nothing more than blind vengeance, you can actually end up weakening the DA's entire prosecution.

[B&WOp;]

The recent Daily News editorial titled "LAPD still hasn't figured out that we are watching" is so simplistic that it implies that the Daily News editors (and its in-house LAPD expert, Mariel Garza) are ignorant of the law, the issues involving police use of force, and defense attorney tactics. The Daily News opines that as soon as the district attorney and the LAPD found out about the video they should have commented on it instead of waiting. The video was made by the suspect's sister and given to the suspect's defense attorney, as the facts discovered so far have pointed out. The defense attorney then tried to use the video to influence the judge during the preliminary hearing and the judge found the officers' actions reasonable based on the suspect's actions and held the suspect to answer for the charges. Then the video is released to YouTube so that public opinion may be swayed against the officers and in favor of the suspect. What a neat defense tactic. It worked on the DA's office.

One thing newspapers in Los Angeles, and criminal enablers (you know, parents and friends of gangsters who never turn the hoodlums in so they can accept responsibility for their crimes) keep forgetting is the simple fact that the law prohibits, let me restate simply, makes it a crime, to resist arrest and evade capture. Those who resist arrest and evade police officers have committed a new crime regardless of the reason for the initial stop. In addition to that, the law mandates, again more simply, requires that police officers use the force necessary to effect an arrest, protect themselves or others, AND prevent escape. That necessary force is judged based on what a like officer in a similar situation and with the same training would do and what is reasonable for the resistance in question. The reasonableness of the force used by police officers is not decided by newspaper editors, journalism professors, defense attorneys, a criminal's family members and friends, news footage, nor public opinion.

When human beings get physical and violence is needed to control a situation, it is not a pretty sight. It's right down ugly and injuries will occur. The choice is ALWAYS in the hands of the suspect. ALWAYS. The suspect decides if he wants to comply with the officers' lawful authority and submit to arrest peacefully, or if he wants to resist those representing the People of California in enforcing its laws. If he choses to resist arrest, he alone will be responsible for any injuries suffered as a result. One thing the officers will not do is go away and allow criminals to dictate if and when they will be arrested.

Maybe LAPD officers should spend a week in their stations like firemen, and only come out to handle radio calls. Maybe what this city needs is a little shock treatment on what kind of crimes its citizens would be suffering instead of being the second safest large city in America. L.A residents should be appreciating those officers who go out and attempt to arrest community hoodlums who terrorize neighborhoods. Keep it up L.A., and pretty soon we won't have any more officers willing to work for us.

[Cicero Lite]

B&WOp;,

One point to add to your post:

Once the police department received the arrest video from the DA and decided open a personnel investigation, it became a matter of a confidential investigation, shielded by state law.

It would not have been proper, and questionably illegal, for the LAPD to release the video itself.

Of course, once it was in the public domain, then the LAPD could at least address it, which is what Bratton and others did.

What was really amazing was how long it took the LA reporters, activists and bloggers to find the video in plain sight. It was posted on You Tube on October 18th.