Reserve police officer, statement, 1991-05-29 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 16 of 35 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Statement Presented to the Independent Commission Investigating the Los Angeles Police Department May 29, 1991 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak before this Commission. So that there is no doubt about my own point of view, I want to make it clear that I am here to speak in support of the Los Angeles Police Department, and in support of the Chief of Police. I feel qualified to do so by reason of the following facts. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from UCLA, and I am a graduate of the UCLA School of Law. I have been a practicing attorney for over 24 years. I have worked in the office of the City Administrative Officer of the City of Los Angeles for three years, and as an aide to a member of the Los Angeles City Council for two years. While in private practice, I have worked as a referee in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court for six years. But most important, I have been a Reserve Police Officer for the City of Los Angeles for the last seven years. I have seen police work as a public administrator, as a prosecutor, as defense counsel, as a judicial officer, and as a Reserve Police Officer. I have seen the workings of the Los Angeles Police Department going back to 1961. I was in City Hall during the "turbulent sixties." I saw then all of the same things that we are witnessing now. I saw apparently peaceful citizens being escorted out of the Mayor's office, who became violent and unruly the moment television camera lights flipped on. Those persons, who had blocked the entrance to the Mayor's office, were being escorted out by Los Angeles Police Officers. But the moment the TV lights came on, I saw people drop to the floor and scream "police brutality." Regrettably, that was the only part of the demonstration that made it to the evening news. Nothing much has changed since then in terms of the type of criticism being heard about the Los Angeles Police Department. I feel particularly well qualified to make that observation, because of my service as a Reserve 1 police officer. I have been a Line Reserve Police Officer for about seven years. To do so, I have gone through the same Los Angeles Police Academy training as has any regular Los Angeles police officer. Rather than take off one day a week to play golf, I take off one day a week to work alongside regular police officers, doing the same work that they do. Let me tell you something about the Police Reserve Corps. Reserves come from all walks of life. In my Academy class, there were 3 attorneys, 1 Certified Public Accountant, and one individual who holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Yale. We also have doctors, dentists, and a myriad of other business and professional people working as Reserves in regular police assignments. These Reserves are not singled out for any sort of special assignment because of their status as Reserves. When Reserves work, we work regular duty assignments, selected at random to work with random partners. In the City of Los Angeles, unlike certain other cities, Reserves are not paid, although we do receive a $15.00 per month expense reimbursement. Some cities pay Reserves for their work but Los Angeles does not. Some cities pay Reserves for working extra shifts, but Los Angeles does not. Some cities pay Reserves for working overtime shifts, but Los Angeles does not. Some cities pay Reserves for court appearances, but Los Ange\es does not. You may wonder why would anyone want to be a Los Angeles Police Reserve Officer. At least for me, it is the belief that the Los Angeles Police Department is truly the best. I know from having observed law enforcement as a resident of the City of Los Angeles all of my life, and having worked in and around City Hall for many years, that our Police Department is the best there is. And that is why I have chosen to make service as a Los Angeles Reserve police officer my form of community service. Just as each of you are serving without compensation, it is my pleasure to work without compensation to help my community, by working as a Reserve. Let me focus the reserve program onto your work in evaluating the Los Angeles Police Department. I· perceive your objective as evaluating both the policies and practices of the LAPD, with an emphasis on racism and force. Here is how I believe Reserves see those things. There are approximately 250 Reserve Police Officers in the City of Los Angeles who work regular field assignments. There are an additional 600 or so who work assignments other than field duty. But looking only at the Reserve Officers who work field assignments, that translates into about 1000 shifts per month. Think about the qualifications of those officers that I described for you earlier. Think about the fact that we have doctors, lawyers, dentists, surgeons, and business and professional people of all types working regular street patrol as police officers. No one could believe that a professional such as myself, or any other Reserve Police Officer, would long remain in a hazardous situation without pay were occurrences such as the Rodney King beating frequently seen. From the foregoing, I would want you to draw the conclusion that the Rodney King matter is, as described by the Chief of Police, truly an aberration. For my own part, I am happy to say that I can truthfully report that I have never seen any act of violence that I would have any problem telling you about. Force is a part of police work, excessive force is not. And excessive force is strictly prohibited by the Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, and by all of the supervisors of the Los Angeles Police Department, up to and including the Chief of Police. I am certain that you will learn from persons far more qualified than me about the Los Angeles Police Department policy regarding the use of deadly force. That policy is taught at length to officers in the Academy, and repeated at least once a month during roll call training at every geographic division. That policy, including the Department's reverence for human life, is repeated time and time again for officers young and old. On the other hand, since police officers are 2 recruited from the human race, it is likely that on occasion, something will go wrong. And when that something does go wrong, the Department maintains a viable complaint system, which the Police Commission does oversee, for enforcing discipline within the Department. Again, I know you will learn from persons more qualified than I f ust how that system works. But I am aware that it is Department policy to accept and investigate all complaints of alleged misconduct by employees received from any source, whether of excessive force or otherwise. I am told that this is not the case in every police department. I am also aware that all such complaints are investigated by a supervisor. And I know that many of those complaints result in discipline. Some of that discipline is viewed as rather harsh by the Department employees. On occasion it is, but that is necessary to maintain strict adherence to the Department's rules and regulations. I believe that the discipline actually administered in the Police Department is more harsh than that which is administered in private industry. Some flip remark, perhaps made in the privacy of a locker room, can get an officer days off, without pay. The press recently carried a story of an officer who was suspended for 22 days following an investigation of excessive force. To put such a suspension in perspective, 22 days is the number of days a police officer is paid in a month. So the 22- day suspension, which I heard described on television as a three-week suspension, was really a one-month suspension, without pay. That suspension resulted from a complaint, made to a desk officer, about an officer who was unknown to the complainant. The complaining party had no idea who the officer was that had used excessive force on him. But a supervisor was assigned to investigate that complaint, who identified the officer, found that excessive force was used, and a one-month suspension resulted. That is hardly the work of a Department that does not care, or a Chief of Police who is not concerned about discipline. The Chief of Police is truly a thoughtful and caring individual, who places the highest value on a reverence for human life, and who dispenses swift and sure punishment when excessive force threatens that human life. Even the existence of this complaint system does not satisfy everyone. And- the press is having a field day in reporting those criticisms, perhaps because Chief Gates and the Los Angeles Police Department, are such easy targets. Chief Gates is not an elected official, with a vast constituency of supporters and a huge campaign war chest. But for the most part, the critics do no more than criticize both the Department and the Chief. Without offering alternatives, the criticism means nothing. In an imperfect world, we are fortunate to have the best police department in it. No other large city comes close. In Chicago, for example, the "Los Angeles Times" reported on May 20, 1991 about a raid on a gambling casino which was being guarded by off-duty police officers. The same article quotes a Chicago attorney as saying, "These cops thought the ·sign on their squad said 'We serve and collect.'" That does not happen in Los Angeles. As the general manager of the Police Department, but not the head of the Department, the Chief of Police must walk a delicate line in his dealings with the press, because he has no real constituency. Perhaps that accounts for the rather slanted reporting which appeared in a "Times" analysis of complaints filed with the Los Angeles Police Department. The "Los Angeles Times" conducted an in depth study, which I am certain you have all read. The headline on the story which I read reported that "Racial Disparity Is Seen in Complaints to LAPD." I think reading just that headline would have suggested some sort of invidious discrimination. But the article actually reported that "Blacks who filed excessive force complaints against Los Angeles police officers were more likely -- by a narrow margin -- to have their complaints upheld by the department than Anglos or Latinos." That is hardly the work of a racist police department. Later in the same article, the "Times" reports that "Unless there was physical evidence or an independent witness to the alleged police abuse, the department took the word of accused officers over the word of civilian complainants." What else could the department do? I don't have any problem with that, and I hope that this Commission com posed of mostly lawyers and judicial officers will have no problem with that. No one is better qualified than lawyers and judges to understand the meaning of "due process of law." And no one is better qualified to realize that at least some evidence is 3 required even where the burden of proof is only by a preponderance of the evidence. How could the Police Department act in favor of a claimant under the circumstances described by the "Times," namely, where there is no physical evidence and no independent witness? If the Department did, in fact, act upon such complaints, it would be only a matter of months before we had no police officers left. In the rush to judgment over the Los Angeles Police Department, I hope this Commission will act in a far more professional way than has the Los Angeles Police Commission. It has been obvious to me from reading the press accounts of the crusade by Commissioner Lomax against the Chief of Police that she is indeed a lady with a mission. I never understood that mission, until I read a description of the relationship between Commissioner Lomax and Mayor Bradley by Councilman Alatorre. He described Commissioner Lomax as "kind of like his adopted daughter." Given that relationship, it is easy to understand why it is so hard to convince Commissioner Lomax to be objective about the Chief of Police or the Police Department. If indeed Commissioner Lomax is like the Mayor's daughter, then perhaps she is not impartial enough to serve on such an important body. No doubt if the Mayor appointed one of his real daughters to the Police Commission, cries of nepotism would ring out from all quarters. I am certain that this Commission will be far less inclined to react without a factual basis for doing so than was the Police Commission. The recent court decision involving the lawsuit filed by the Chief of Police, and its settlement by the Los Angeles City Council, does not, as claimed by the Commission, usurp their powers at all. That decision tioes no more than restore due process of law to the Police Department. The court did not take away any of the powers of the Police Commission under the City Charter. Rather, the court ruled that the Police Commission must act as required by the Charter provisions dealing with the administration of discipline within the Police Department, and as required under the Government Code. When the Police Commission does not do so, then they act arbitrarily and beyond the scope of their authority. The courts are always available to control administrative abuses. That is nothing new. The City Council recognized the extent to which the Police Commission had exceeded its authority, and therefore recommended a settlement of the lawsuit. This Commission should see that for what it was, and should not react to those who claim that returning the Chief of Police to his office, following the Commission's attempt to remove him, signals a need for a reform in city government, or the City Charter, which would alter the tenure of the Chief of Police. The reform is due only among the incumbent members of the Police Commission. That body should accept its responsibility under the Charter to act constructively in making sound, well reasoned management decisions in fulfilling its role as head of the Police Department. In closing, let me point out that what we are seeing today in Los Angeles is not new. After the Watts riot, many sought to blame the Los Angeles Police Department for the riot. But nearly a year _before the Watts riot, former Police Chief Parker spoke prophetically of the role of police in society. In a speech delivered to the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Louisville, Kentucky in October, 1964, Chief Parker spoke as follows: "Because the police are in the forefront of every violent conflict, they have been unjustly and critically attacked by those whose illegal manifestations have been interfered with. When violence has occurred, there is the inevitable attempt to blame the police, and national organizations are brought into play as local police forces are singled out for national attack. The police are at a great disadvantage." To partially shift that disadvantage, 800 citizens in the City of Los Angeles work as Reserve Police Officers, and over 12,000 do so throughout the State of California. They do so because I am certain they believe, as Edmund Burke said, that "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." I can assure you on behalf of myself, and all other Reserves, that if anything like the Rodney" King affair were the rule, rather than the exception, none of us would risk our lives, our reputations, or our fortunes to protect and to serve. 4
Object Description
Title | Public session, 1991-05-29: materials from organizations, 2.5, 1970-1991 |
Description | Public session, 1991-05-29: materials from organizations, 2.5, 1970 - 1991 May 29. PART OF A SERIES: Materials in the series fall into one of several categories related to the Independent Commission's work product: (1) Commission meeting materials, which include meeting agendas, work plans, memoranda, and articles about police misconduct that were circulated and reviewed during the Commission's internal meetings; (2) public correspondence, which includes citizen complaints against the LAPD in the form of written testimony, articles, and an audio cassette tape, as well as letters drafted by citizens in support of the LAPD; (3) summaries of interviews held with LAPD officers regarding Departmental procedures and relations; (4) public meeting materials, which include transcripts, supplementary documents, and witness statements that were reviewed at the Commission's public meetings; (5) press releases related to the formation and work product of the Commission; and (6) miscellaneous materials reviewed by the Commission during its study, including LAPD personnel and training manuals, a memorandum of understanding, and messages from the LAPD's Mobile Digital Terminal (MDT) system. |
Coverage date | 1855/1991-05-29 |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Date created | 1970/1991-05-29 |
Format | 208 p. |
Format (aat) |
agendas (administrative records) articles business cards clippings (information artifacts) correspondence lists (document genres) memorandums papers (documents) presentations (communicative events) tables of contents |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
Series | Independent Commission File List |
File | Public Sessions |
Box and folder | box 25, folder 9 |
Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
Filename | indep-box25-09 |
Description
Title | Reserve police officer, statement, 1991-05-29 |
Description | Statement presented to the Independent Commission investigating the LAPD |
Coverage date | 1991-05-29 |
Date created | 1991-05-29 |
Type | texts |
Format | 4 p. |
Format (aat) | presentations (communicative events) |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Series | Independent Commission File List |
File | Public Sessions |
Box and folder | box 25, folder 9, item 16 |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Full text | Statement Presented to the Independent Commission Investigating the Los Angeles Police Department May 29, 1991 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak before this Commission. So that there is no doubt about my own point of view, I want to make it clear that I am here to speak in support of the Los Angeles Police Department, and in support of the Chief of Police. I feel qualified to do so by reason of the following facts. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from UCLA, and I am a graduate of the UCLA School of Law. I have been a practicing attorney for over 24 years. I have worked in the office of the City Administrative Officer of the City of Los Angeles for three years, and as an aide to a member of the Los Angeles City Council for two years. While in private practice, I have worked as a referee in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court for six years. But most important, I have been a Reserve Police Officer for the City of Los Angeles for the last seven years. I have seen police work as a public administrator, as a prosecutor, as defense counsel, as a judicial officer, and as a Reserve Police Officer. I have seen the workings of the Los Angeles Police Department going back to 1961. I was in City Hall during the "turbulent sixties." I saw then all of the same things that we are witnessing now. I saw apparently peaceful citizens being escorted out of the Mayor's office, who became violent and unruly the moment television camera lights flipped on. Those persons, who had blocked the entrance to the Mayor's office, were being escorted out by Los Angeles Police Officers. But the moment the TV lights came on, I saw people drop to the floor and scream "police brutality." Regrettably, that was the only part of the demonstration that made it to the evening news. Nothing much has changed since then in terms of the type of criticism being heard about the Los Angeles Police Department. I feel particularly well qualified to make that observation, because of my service as a Reserve 1 police officer. I have been a Line Reserve Police Officer for about seven years. To do so, I have gone through the same Los Angeles Police Academy training as has any regular Los Angeles police officer. Rather than take off one day a week to play golf, I take off one day a week to work alongside regular police officers, doing the same work that they do. Let me tell you something about the Police Reserve Corps. Reserves come from all walks of life. In my Academy class, there were 3 attorneys, 1 Certified Public Accountant, and one individual who holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Yale. We also have doctors, dentists, and a myriad of other business and professional people working as Reserves in regular police assignments. These Reserves are not singled out for any sort of special assignment because of their status as Reserves. When Reserves work, we work regular duty assignments, selected at random to work with random partners. In the City of Los Angeles, unlike certain other cities, Reserves are not paid, although we do receive a $15.00 per month expense reimbursement. Some cities pay Reserves for their work but Los Angeles does not. Some cities pay Reserves for working extra shifts, but Los Angeles does not. Some cities pay Reserves for working overtime shifts, but Los Angeles does not. Some cities pay Reserves for court appearances, but Los Ange\es does not. You may wonder why would anyone want to be a Los Angeles Police Reserve Officer. At least for me, it is the belief that the Los Angeles Police Department is truly the best. I know from having observed law enforcement as a resident of the City of Los Angeles all of my life, and having worked in and around City Hall for many years, that our Police Department is the best there is. And that is why I have chosen to make service as a Los Angeles Reserve police officer my form of community service. Just as each of you are serving without compensation, it is my pleasure to work without compensation to help my community, by working as a Reserve. Let me focus the reserve program onto your work in evaluating the Los Angeles Police Department. I· perceive your objective as evaluating both the policies and practices of the LAPD, with an emphasis on racism and force. Here is how I believe Reserves see those things. There are approximately 250 Reserve Police Officers in the City of Los Angeles who work regular field assignments. There are an additional 600 or so who work assignments other than field duty. But looking only at the Reserve Officers who work field assignments, that translates into about 1000 shifts per month. Think about the qualifications of those officers that I described for you earlier. Think about the fact that we have doctors, lawyers, dentists, surgeons, and business and professional people of all types working regular street patrol as police officers. No one could believe that a professional such as myself, or any other Reserve Police Officer, would long remain in a hazardous situation without pay were occurrences such as the Rodney King beating frequently seen. From the foregoing, I would want you to draw the conclusion that the Rodney King matter is, as described by the Chief of Police, truly an aberration. For my own part, I am happy to say that I can truthfully report that I have never seen any act of violence that I would have any problem telling you about. Force is a part of police work, excessive force is not. And excessive force is strictly prohibited by the Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, and by all of the supervisors of the Los Angeles Police Department, up to and including the Chief of Police. I am certain that you will learn from persons far more qualified than me about the Los Angeles Police Department policy regarding the use of deadly force. That policy is taught at length to officers in the Academy, and repeated at least once a month during roll call training at every geographic division. That policy, including the Department's reverence for human life, is repeated time and time again for officers young and old. On the other hand, since police officers are 2 recruited from the human race, it is likely that on occasion, something will go wrong. And when that something does go wrong, the Department maintains a viable complaint system, which the Police Commission does oversee, for enforcing discipline within the Department. Again, I know you will learn from persons more qualified than I f ust how that system works. But I am aware that it is Department policy to accept and investigate all complaints of alleged misconduct by employees received from any source, whether of excessive force or otherwise. I am told that this is not the case in every police department. I am also aware that all such complaints are investigated by a supervisor. And I know that many of those complaints result in discipline. Some of that discipline is viewed as rather harsh by the Department employees. On occasion it is, but that is necessary to maintain strict adherence to the Department's rules and regulations. I believe that the discipline actually administered in the Police Department is more harsh than that which is administered in private industry. Some flip remark, perhaps made in the privacy of a locker room, can get an officer days off, without pay. The press recently carried a story of an officer who was suspended for 22 days following an investigation of excessive force. To put such a suspension in perspective, 22 days is the number of days a police officer is paid in a month. So the 22- day suspension, which I heard described on television as a three-week suspension, was really a one-month suspension, without pay. That suspension resulted from a complaint, made to a desk officer, about an officer who was unknown to the complainant. The complaining party had no idea who the officer was that had used excessive force on him. But a supervisor was assigned to investigate that complaint, who identified the officer, found that excessive force was used, and a one-month suspension resulted. That is hardly the work of a Department that does not care, or a Chief of Police who is not concerned about discipline. The Chief of Police is truly a thoughtful and caring individual, who places the highest value on a reverence for human life, and who dispenses swift and sure punishment when excessive force threatens that human life. Even the existence of this complaint system does not satisfy everyone. And- the press is having a field day in reporting those criticisms, perhaps because Chief Gates and the Los Angeles Police Department, are such easy targets. Chief Gates is not an elected official, with a vast constituency of supporters and a huge campaign war chest. But for the most part, the critics do no more than criticize both the Department and the Chief. Without offering alternatives, the criticism means nothing. In an imperfect world, we are fortunate to have the best police department in it. No other large city comes close. In Chicago, for example, the "Los Angeles Times" reported on May 20, 1991 about a raid on a gambling casino which was being guarded by off-duty police officers. The same article quotes a Chicago attorney as saying, "These cops thought the ·sign on their squad said 'We serve and collect.'" That does not happen in Los Angeles. As the general manager of the Police Department, but not the head of the Department, the Chief of Police must walk a delicate line in his dealings with the press, because he has no real constituency. Perhaps that accounts for the rather slanted reporting which appeared in a "Times" analysis of complaints filed with the Los Angeles Police Department. The "Los Angeles Times" conducted an in depth study, which I am certain you have all read. The headline on the story which I read reported that "Racial Disparity Is Seen in Complaints to LAPD." I think reading just that headline would have suggested some sort of invidious discrimination. But the article actually reported that "Blacks who filed excessive force complaints against Los Angeles police officers were more likely -- by a narrow margin -- to have their complaints upheld by the department than Anglos or Latinos." That is hardly the work of a racist police department. Later in the same article, the "Times" reports that "Unless there was physical evidence or an independent witness to the alleged police abuse, the department took the word of accused officers over the word of civilian complainants." What else could the department do? I don't have any problem with that, and I hope that this Commission com posed of mostly lawyers and judicial officers will have no problem with that. No one is better qualified than lawyers and judges to understand the meaning of "due process of law." And no one is better qualified to realize that at least some evidence is 3 required even where the burden of proof is only by a preponderance of the evidence. How could the Police Department act in favor of a claimant under the circumstances described by the "Times," namely, where there is no physical evidence and no independent witness? If the Department did, in fact, act upon such complaints, it would be only a matter of months before we had no police officers left. In the rush to judgment over the Los Angeles Police Department, I hope this Commission will act in a far more professional way than has the Los Angeles Police Commission. It has been obvious to me from reading the press accounts of the crusade by Commissioner Lomax against the Chief of Police that she is indeed a lady with a mission. I never understood that mission, until I read a description of the relationship between Commissioner Lomax and Mayor Bradley by Councilman Alatorre. He described Commissioner Lomax as "kind of like his adopted daughter." Given that relationship, it is easy to understand why it is so hard to convince Commissioner Lomax to be objective about the Chief of Police or the Police Department. If indeed Commissioner Lomax is like the Mayor's daughter, then perhaps she is not impartial enough to serve on such an important body. No doubt if the Mayor appointed one of his real daughters to the Police Commission, cries of nepotism would ring out from all quarters. I am certain that this Commission will be far less inclined to react without a factual basis for doing so than was the Police Commission. The recent court decision involving the lawsuit filed by the Chief of Police, and its settlement by the Los Angeles City Council, does not, as claimed by the Commission, usurp their powers at all. That decision tioes no more than restore due process of law to the Police Department. The court did not take away any of the powers of the Police Commission under the City Charter. Rather, the court ruled that the Police Commission must act as required by the Charter provisions dealing with the administration of discipline within the Police Department, and as required under the Government Code. When the Police Commission does not do so, then they act arbitrarily and beyond the scope of their authority. The courts are always available to control administrative abuses. That is nothing new. The City Council recognized the extent to which the Police Commission had exceeded its authority, and therefore recommended a settlement of the lawsuit. This Commission should see that for what it was, and should not react to those who claim that returning the Chief of Police to his office, following the Commission's attempt to remove him, signals a need for a reform in city government, or the City Charter, which would alter the tenure of the Chief of Police. The reform is due only among the incumbent members of the Police Commission. That body should accept its responsibility under the Charter to act constructively in making sound, well reasoned management decisions in fulfilling its role as head of the Police Department. In closing, let me point out that what we are seeing today in Los Angeles is not new. After the Watts riot, many sought to blame the Los Angeles Police Department for the riot. But nearly a year _before the Watts riot, former Police Chief Parker spoke prophetically of the role of police in society. In a speech delivered to the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Louisville, Kentucky in October, 1964, Chief Parker spoke as follows: "Because the police are in the forefront of every violent conflict, they have been unjustly and critically attacked by those whose illegal manifestations have been interfered with. When violence has occurred, there is the inevitable attempt to blame the police, and national organizations are brought into play as local police forces are singled out for national attack. The police are at a great disadvantage." To partially shift that disadvantage, 800 citizens in the City of Los Angeles work as Reserve Police Officers, and over 12,000 do so throughout the State of California. They do so because I am certain they believe, as Edmund Burke said, that "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." I can assure you on behalf of myself, and all other Reserves, that if anything like the Rodney" King affair were the rule, rather than the exception, none of us would risk our lives, our reputations, or our fortunes to protect and to serve. 4 |
Filename | indep-box25-09-16.pdf |
Archival file | Volume84/indep-box25-09-16.pdf |