Los Angeles, California
December 18, 2013****
(Today's date)
June 27, 2013
(Original date)
*This is not the actual word that I wish to use, but I realize that the actual word, "bullshit", might be offensive to or for some readers, so I chose not to use the word in the title of the blog, and substituted "rubbish" instead. However, I will likely use the actual word in the text of the blog, because it*'s the word which best represents my sentiment or feeling for the so-called Dorner Report. My offended readers get an advanced apology here.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW material or information added to the blog after original publication)
*(Denotes new information added to the original blog)
***This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California; and it is especially dedicated to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD.
****This re-publishing of the blog is done specifically in response to an L.A. Times series of articles, published last week, entitled "The Manhunt" (with separate sub-titles for each individual article), which was about Christopher Dorner and his journey to clear his name. Even though the articles are supposed to be merely a "reconstruction" of "the events behind the story", the articles clearly have a pro-police slant, even in its description of Dorner's journey, i.e., "the vengeful rampage of a former LAPD officer", and "the ensuing police manhunt". Therefore, the re-publishing of this blog here is meant to re-assert and maintain a different view with respect to some of the events identified in the Times' articles.
Last Friday, the LAPD produced a so-called Dorner Report, in which it concluded that the LAPD's firing of Christopher Dorner, the Black, and now deceased, former LAPD officer, was justified. Clearly, from my past writings on the Dorner case, I would disagree with the Report, even without reading the entire Report. And, my disagreement would be based in large part on the subsequent Court rulings (and my assessment of those rulings) following the Board of Rights decision. It also would be based on Chris Dorner's "manifesto", which I give much credit to. I am confident that reading the entire Report will not sway me one way or the other (because it appears, from the parts that I have read--from various sources, that it is totally one-sided); but, what it will do is provide me with additional ammunition and answers as to why Dorner was unjustly treated and terminated by the LAPD. Thusfar, I have been unabled to obtain a copy of the report online, so I'll have to try and get a copy otherwise.
But, in order to try and be fair in responding to the Report, I should at least try and read the entire Report (or at least most or a substantial portion of it), even if I know what my response will be (based on the bits and pieces of the Report that I've read already). I will also respond to an *article written by Connie Rice with respect to the Report ("Dorner's web of lies about the LAPD", L.A. Times, June 26, 2013). But, I'll need to read the Report to adequately respond to her *article as well. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the title of this blog will remain the same, even after I read the Report.
The purpose of this writing is simply to let my readers know that I know about the Report, and that I will respond to it.
So, until next time.
UPDATE--July 23, 2013
I have now read the entire Dorner Report, so I can now fairly assess the Report.
As I stated above, and as I anticipated from the parts of the Report that I had read about before reading the entire Report, my position has not changed: the Dorner Report is absolute bullshit. And, the reason it's bullshit is because its purely subjective in favor of the LAPD (providing no positive information favoring Dorner--and as you will see in my discussion of the Report, there is significant positive information favoring Dorner provided by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Police Commission); its totally conclusory (providing no documentation to support the position of the writer, Gerald Chaleff, Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing, *LAPD); it's unilateral rather than bi-lateral; and its sole purpose is to justify the firing of Dorner rather than to provide some insight into whether Dorner was fairly and justifiably fired.
Before I actually get into the discussion of the Report, I will provide some insight into the mechanics of my obtaining the Report. Initially, I tried to obtain the Report online, but was unsuccessful. Then I visited the police department building in downtown Los Angeles to try and get a copy. But, it was on a Friday, and the desk officer told me that the LAPD (or the Police Commission) do not conduct public business on Friday, and that I would have to try and get the Report Monday-Thursday. So I left. I then subsequently tried another source (that source will remain unidentified for now) and was successful in obtaining a copy of the Report and a copy of the OIG Report (both items were submitted as part of the Report). However, in a L.A. Times article, the Times had stated that the Report was 39 pages, and the Report I had obtained was only 22 pages (the actual Report, excluding the introductory pages), so I thought perhaps I had not obtained the entire Report. So, I decided to visit the LAPD downtown building again, this time on a Thursday, to make sure that I received the entire Report. After a lady was summoned from the *L.A. Police Commission office, she first told me to write down my information, i.e., name, address, etc., and told me that she didn't know if I could get a copy that same day, and perhaps it would have to be mailed to me. But, I told her that I only wanted a copy the same day (and not a mailed copy). She left and returned and told me that I could get a copy, but that I would have to pay for it. I said that was fine, I would pay for it. Nevertheless, she still took the information that I had written down at her request. Eventually, I paid for the Report and received a copy, but, the Report did not include the OIG Report that I had received from my other source. So, the copy of the Report that I received from the Commission excluded or did not include the Commission's OIG Report and, but for my other source, I would not have known anything about the OIG Report, which as you will see later in this blog, is absolutely crucial and significant, because it addresses the Report findings. Moreover, the Report contained a total of 29 pages, including the introductory pages (22 actual report pages and 7 pages of introduction). So, that still didn't add up to the 39 pages mentioned in the L.A. Times article. And, I mentioned this to the Commission lady that was helping me. She said that she didn't know about the rest or any other pages--she acknowledged the total 29 pages. Then I mentioned the OIG Report, and suggested that maybe that accounted for the remaining missing pages. She said perhaps. But she never submitted the OIG Report to me as part of the Report (and I didn't tell her that I was in possession of it, I just mentioned it to let her know that I was aware that there was one). So, if I hadn't obtained a copy from my source, which is not the L.A. Times, I would not have been aware of the OIG Report and would not have been able to rely on it in responding to the Report. (This is why I am not identifying my source, because if another Report is produced and the Commission decides not to provide the complete copy to the public, identifying my source here might jeopardize me obtaining a complete copy from the source (because the Commission would know who the source is)). And, as I mentioned previously, the OIG Report is crucial to and for Chris Dorner, in trying to "clear his name". So, the Commission personnel kept the OIG Report, and the information contained therein, from me as a citizen. And if, in fact, the OIG Report is considered a part of the LAPD Report, then the failure of the Commission to include the OIG Report was a coverup, and an intentional coverup of information critical to the LAPD's Report and information that the public should know and have a right to know. If this is true, I condemn the Commission for that action.
Anyway, as it turns out, out of the missing 10 pages that were unaccounted for in the Report (based on the Times' number of pages, 39, it said was contained in the Report), only seven pages were accounted for with the OIG Report. So, there is still 3 pages that remain unaccounted for as identified by the L.A. Times in its article (39 pages). But, it appears that the 39 pages identified by the L.A. Times most assuredly included the OIG Report. So that means that the L.A. Times also knew about the OIG Report when it reported its story, entitled, "Dorner firing is deemed justified", June 22, 2013; yet, it failed to publish any of the information in the Report which shade a positive light on Christopher Dorner, and which argued against the LAPD Report being justified. This would amount to an intentional biased story by the L.A. Times as well. If this is true (and I say "if" because I have not seen the Report that the L.A. Times received--but almost assuredly, it contained the OIG Report), I also condemn the L.A. Times for its biased and prejudicial reporting.
THE DORNER REPORT : WHY THE LAPD WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN FIRING CHRISTOPHER DORNER
As stated above, after reading the entire Dorner Report, I maintain my original position that the Report is bullshit. While I have summarized my most basic reasons above, I will go more in depth here. However, I will not perform an in-depth analysis of the entire Report, section by section, because it would require much more time than I have available for a pro bono project. Yet, if the time were available to me, I would counter and dispel each section of the Report. But, I will provide enough information for you the reader to determine that the Report was biased, conclusory, and unsupported by the relevant record, and that the Report did not justify the firing of Christopher Dorner. My main reason for responding to the Report at all, and for writing the past blogs on behalf of Christopher Dorner is to help "clear Chris Dorner's name" and to demonstrate that the LAPD was not justified in firing Chris Dorner, because , among other things, Chris Dorner was a good and decent man, who the LAPD made go bad by firing him because he was a Black male, knowing that the firing was unjustified.
The following buttress the reasons stated above :
First, the Report was unilateral or one-sided with the specific intent to justify the LAPD's firing of Dorner, rather than an objective two-sided decision in a search for fairness of the decision. The Report was written entirely by a LAPD Officer, assistant to Chief Charlie Beck, without any outside or independent view or support.
Second, there was no documentation attached to the Report to support any of the report-writer's assertions. Not even a copy of the Board of Rights decision, which was so instrumental to the firing decision. Although the Report contained a listing of a number of documents or items that were purportedly used in preparing the Report, glaringly, none of those documents were attached to the Report. So, the average citizen reading the Report must rely wholly on the writer's, Gerald L. Chaleff, opinions and conclusions with no documentation to support them. For instance, Dorner apparently claimed that someone, likely another police officer, had urinated on his jacket. The Report stated, "The Department sent the jacket to the Scientific Investigation Division for analysis, which revealed the stain on the jacket did not smell, look like or contain the constituents for urine." But, the results of the analysis, which would only have required a couple of pages to produce, was not produced. Another example, the Report stated the Consent Decree (which was court imposed on the LAPD) required "the creation of a early warning system, and the Department created such a system; RMIS." The Report then goes on to explain how the system works, and insinuates that Dorner should have used this system rather than filing a complaint against a lieutenant charging retaliation. The Report then states, "This was explained in detail to Dorner, and he indicated he understood." How does the reader of the Report know this to be true? He doesn't. Where is the evidence of this? Non-existent.
Third, the significant evidence surrounding the Report, butressed by the OIG Report, supra, clearly demonstrates that Christopher Dorner should not have been fired and the LAPD knew it. Even though the LAPD's Report attempts to justify the firing of Dorner, inadvertedly, it admits that he should not have been fired. Here's why, based on the Report:
1. From the Report: "In January 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department terminated Dorner for filing a false complaint against his training officer, in which he alleged his training officer kicked a suspect, and for making false statements on two occasions regarding these alleged kicks." At p. 2.
2. The only three people who witnessed or could have witnessed any kicking of the suspect or arrestee by the training officer, Teresa Evans, were Dorner, the arrestee, Christopher Gettler, and Evans.
While the LAPD pretended that there were four independent witnesses to the kicking incident, and in fact relied on this pretense to support their firing of Dorner (as did the Board of Rights (BOR)), it is clear that only Dorner, Gettler, and Evans actually witnessed the kicking (or non-kicking) of Gettler.
From the OIG Report: "In its review, the Department indicates that there were four witnesses that saw the entire episode and testified that they never saw the training officer kick the suspect. After reviewing the files and transcripts from the Board proceedings, the OIG believes that none of these witnesses saw the entire episode and that they may not have seen the relevant portions of the incident in the planter. These three witnessed (sic) recalled a struggle between the officers and the suspect near the planter. These witnesses. . . never saw the training officer fully enter into the planter and therefore they were unable to offer testimony about what actions, if any, the training officer took while she was in the planter." At pgs. 1-2 of 4. "The remaining witness was a police officer from another agency." And although, "This police officer stated that he did not see the training officer kick the suspect during this incident", "this officer only witnessed a portion of the incident and therefore could not conclusively prove whether or not any kicking occurred." (Incidentally, Dorner, in his "manifesto", charged these witnesses with lying; so the OIG Report backs him up).
3. Of the three people who actually witnessed the kicking (or non-kicking) of Gettler, two of them, Dorner and Gettler, testified that Evans kicked Gettler. Since Gettler was the one who was actually kicked (or subject to the kicking), he provided the best evidence of the kicking or non-kicking. And, Gettler testified through video and live testimony that he was kicked by a female officer. And, this evidence was admitted into evidence at the Board of Rights hearing.
From the Report: "(T)he Board allowed the video tape to be played and received into evidence." At 17. "He was then asked who kicked him and he answered 'an officer' and then if male or female, he responded 'female'". Id. And, "(T)he Board decided to allow the arrestee to testify in person." Id. at 16. This evidence, alone, was more than sufficient to prevent Dorner's firing, regardless of any other evidence to the contrary, e.g., Gettler's mental state or his "non-responsiveness" or "incoherency" (there was no evidence submitted that somehow Dorner conspired with Gettler to have Gettler intentionally lie or that Gettler had a motive to lie himself or on his own). Gettler testified under oath at the hearing, and that oath had to apply to the videotape testimony. So, based on the testimony and evidence of Dorner and Gettler alone, the LAPD could not have fairly fired Dorner.
4. Finally, although no other evidence is necessary to support a finding that the LAPD fired Chris Dorner intentionally and in bad faith, and therefore, unjustifiably, there is other evidence that support that lack of justification.
From the Report: "The father (of Gettler) testified that when his son was brought home four days after the incident, he noticed a slight puffiness and 'a line' on his face. When he asked his son what had happened, the son (Gettler) told him that he was 'kicked', and then related that it happened at 'a hotel down by the water'". Id. at 17. "His son told him he was kicked twice and pointed to his chest." Id. And, "The father also added at a later point in his testimony that. . . 'officers kicked me'". Id. This evidence, regardless of any evidentiary challenges to the contrary, was sufficient to prevent Dorner from being fired and to defeat any evidence that he was lying.
Moreover,
From the Report: "The evidence presented demonstrated that Dorner was concerned about receiving an unsatisfactory rating, and that on the last day his training officer and Dorner worked together, August 4, 2007, the training officer explained to him that if his performance did not improve she would give him an unsatisfactory rating." At 19. "Interviews conducted for this report with two supervisors who were at Harbor Division at the time verified that his trianing officer was discussing with her supervisor the performance of Dorner and the issuance of an unsatisfactory rating." Id.
But,
From the OIG Report: "One of Dorner's watch commanders also testified during the Board of Rights hearing. The watch commander had reviewed the training officer's evaluations of Dorner and believed he (Dorner) was progressing acceptably. In fact, the watch commander did not have any information that would indicate that Dorner's performance was unsatisfactory." At p. 2 of 4.
"The OIG's review of Dorner's performance rating sheets, which were offered as evidence at the Board of Rights, did not reveal any substantial problems or concerns with Dorner's performance nor did the ratings corroborate the training officer's testimony about Dorner's progress." Id. at p. 3 of 4. Dorner's testimony "indicated that he was not concerned about receiving such a rating. He testified that he occasionally received 'needs improvement' ratings from his training officers on particular areas, but that the bulk of his performance reviews were favorable." Id.
"In its review, the Department indicates that there were witnesses who had knowledge of the training officer's intent to adversely rate. These witnesses were not presented during the Board of Rights hearing and more importantly, their testimony would potentially have conflicted with the training officer's statement that she told only Dorner about the impending adverse rating." Id.
On Evans' (the training officer) Credibility
"Dorner accused the training officer of writing the portion of the arrest report that discussed the use of force and specifically omitted any reference to kicking the suspect. During the complaint investigation, the training officer denied writing any portion of the arrest report. At the Board of Rights hearing, however, the training officer testified that she did sit at a computer and edit portions of the report because Dorner failed to understand how important it was to be very 'specific and detailed' when recounting each and every action during the reported use of force. The training officer was never questioned during the complaint investigation and her later testimony during the hearing." Id.
"In the Use of Force portion of the arrest report, the training officer reported that she approached the arrestee in the planter during the struggle and took control of the arrestee's 'head and neck'. However, in her subsequent statements during the misconduct investigation and at the Board of Rights, the training officer said that she approached the arrestee to gain control of his arm, with no mention at all of the head and neck. The training officer was never asked during the Board of Rights to address which account of her actions was accurate, and why the accounts differed." Id. And, this helps explain why Dorner was so incredulous and angered about his attorney representative, Randy Quan, at the Board of Rights hearing. This is probably just one of the things that caused Dorner to become so angry that he decided to go after Quan's children.
Dorner stated, in his manifesto : "What you did was perjury, exactly what Evans did when she stated she did not kick Christopher Gettler. What they failed to mention in the BOR was Teresa Evans own use of force history during her career on the LAPD. She has admitted that she has a lengthy use of force record and has been flagged several times by risk management. She has a very well known nickname, Chupacabra, which she was very proud to flaunt around the division. She found it very funny and entertaining to draw blood from suspects and arrestees. Teresa Evans was also demoted from a senior lead officer rank/position for performance issues.
During my two months of working patrol with Teresa Evans, I found her as a woman who was very angry that she had been pulled from patrol for a short time because of a domestic violence report made by Long Beach Police Departmentbecause of an incident involving her active LAPD officer boyfriend, Dominick Fuentes, and herself. Dominick Fuentes is the same officer investigated for witness tampering. She (Evans) also was visibly angry on a daily basis that she was going to have to file for bankruptcy because her ex-husband, a former LAPD officer and not Dominick Fuentes, who had left the department, state, and was nowhere to be found had left her with atax bill and debt that she was unable to pay because of a lack of financial means.
Evans, you are a POS and you lied right to the BOR panel when Randy Quan asked you if you kicked Christopher Gettler. You destroyed my life and name because of your actions. Time is up. The time is now to confess to Chief Beck."
Has Evans confessed to Chief Beck ?
Does Chief Beck continue to believe that Chris Dorner's firing was justifiable?
Lastly : From the OIG Report: "The Superior Court ruled that the evidence presented at the Board of Rights failed to prove whether or not the alleged kicks occurred." At p.4 of 4. Therefore, based on the fact that the burden of proof lied with the government (to prove that Dorner made a false statement in stating that the training officer, Evans, had kicked Gettler), the Superior Court should have found that the government did not meet its burden, and therefore, could not fire Dorner. But, it didn't. Instead, it erroneously affirmed the Board of Rights decision, which found that the training officer, Evans, was more credible than Dorner, and, as I have demonstrated, this was not true.
SUMMATION
If the reader has followed this blog from its conception, you will note that I stated above that "I am confident that reading the entire Report will not sway me one way or the other. . . ." And that "what it will do is provide me with additional ammunition and answers as to why Dorner was unjustly treated and terminated by the LAPD." Well, my review of the entire Report has proven my statements to be true.
The Dorner Report is not credible. Therefore, it, necessarily, cannot demonstrate whether the firing of Christopher Dorner was justified or not. In fact, the significant evidence cited in the Report, buttressed by significant parts of the OIG Report, demonstrates that Dorner should not have been fired, and therefore, his firing was not justifiable.
Moreover, the combination of the Report and the OIG Report serves to prove that Chris Dorner was telling the truth when he stated and complained that Teresa Evans kicked Christopher Gettler, the arrestee in the Report.
Since both the Board of Rights and the OIG decisions were based on credibility of the material witnesses to the kicking incident, i.e., Teresa Evans and Chris Dorner, and the OIG found that : "the determination of whether the suspect was kicked ultimately rested on whether the Board of Rights found Dorner or his training officer to be more credible", at p. 3 of 4, the totality of the evidence (from the Report, and especially the OIG Report, and Dorner's "Manifesto"), supports the conclusion that Dorner was more credible than Teresa Evans.
The only reason why the OIG found Dorner was less credible than Evans, which was the basis of the OIG sustaining the BOR's decision, was that Dorner was late in reporting the kicking incidents ("The OIG concurs with the Department's opinion that Dorner's inability to clearly and consistently articulate why he failed to promptly report the kicks damaged his credibility"). But, the issue of Dorner reporting the kicking incident late, for whatever reasons, had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was telling the truth about Evans kicking Gettler. And, there was ample evidence to support the conclusion that Evans, in fact, kicked Gettler.
The problem was that the OIG, like the LAPD, disregarded the testimony of both Gettler and his father ("There appear to be no percipient witnesses or physical evidence to corroborate Dorner's accusation that the training officer kicked the suspect in the shoulder and head during the arrest", at p. 3 of 4), and this was gross error and inexcusable, and a source of bias against Dorner. Who were Gettler and his father, if they weren't "percipient witnesses"? And, what was "The father testified that when his son was brought home four days after the incident, he noticed a slight puffiness and a 'line' on his face. When he asked his son what had happened, the son told him that he was 'kicked' and then related that it happened at 'a hotel down by the water'"(Report, at p. 17), if its not "physical evidence"? Both the "percipient witnesses" (Gettler and his father) and the "physical evidence" (a slight puffiness and a line on his face) supported and corroborated "Dorner's accusation that the training officer kicked the suspect in the shoulder and head during the arrest"). They also supported the fact that Dorner was telling the truth. Therefore, Dorner should not have been fired, and there was no justification for doing so. At minimum, the evidence available was enough to create an issue as to whether Dorner was telling the truth (and it did, even for the Superior Court, which could not decide whether Evans kicked Gettler or not), and this was enough to prevent the valid or justified firing of Dorner. Perhaps, he could have received some other discipline, but the LAPD could not legally fire Dorner. Therefore, his firing was not only unjustified, but it was also illegal.
Because of the way or manner in which the Dorner Report was constructed and produced, i.e., one-sided and partial to the LAPD, it clearly demonstrates that the LAPD cannot police itself; and the Black community cannot depend on the LAPD to objectively police itself. Therefore, any future controversies involving the violation of citizens' rights, and especially Black citizens' rights, should involve a citizens' committee (which would not be selected by the LAPD) as part of the evaluation or Report writing team, to assure that the targeted police officer (who's conduct is being evaluated) has his or her position included in the Report, thereby assuring (or helping to assure) an objective and fair Report.
Captain Charlie Beck owes Dorner a public denounciation of the Dorner Report and a public confession that the LAPD was not justified in firing him. Whether Capt. Beck does it or not will be a measure of his integrity and honesty with the Black community.
Finally, Chief Beck has requested the Board of Police Commissioners to "REVIEW and ACCEPT" the Report. The Board of Police Commissioners should NOT ACCEPT the Dorner Report, for the reasons identified in this Rebuttal.
The next time : a response to Connie Rice's article.
cc: Board of Police Commissioners
UPDATE--July 27, 2013
THE CONNIE RICE ARTICLE ("Dorner's web of lies about the LAPD", LA Times, June 26)
Generally, Connie Rice's article mirrors the LAPD's Dorner Report in the sense that it is conclusory with unsubstantiated or uncorroborated allegations of a factual nature, which are attempted to be shielded by a dispersement of opinion. Thus, the article is included in the "Op-Ed" Section of the paper, to try and persuade the reader that the entire piece is strictly Rice's opinion. But, it utterly fails to do so. And, any astute reader can readily see that the article is nothing more than an attempt by Rice to make unsupported factual assertions about Dorner without adequate evidentiary backing, and immerse the factual assertions into the mix of opinion that persuades the reader to accept the entire article as educated opinion. But, it doesn't work. And, stripped of its opinion protection, it's nothing more than uncorroborated garbage.
Mind you, Rice does express opinion in her article, most of which I disagree with, and she does have that right. For instance, she states that Dorner's "manifesto" was a "rambling manifesto". I , like some other readers of the manifesto, if you search the internet, disagree with this; I found the manifesto to be clear, structured, and sensible, and it helped form my opinion about Dorner as a good and decent man. But, that clearly is opinion, and it needs no corroboration. Another example, Rice states, "The department (LAPD) had changed dramatically by the time Dorner joined it in 2000." That's Rice's opinion, and she has a right to express it. But, Chris Dorner disagreed with that opinion. In his manifesto, Dorner stated :
* "The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days. It has gotten worse. The consent decree should never have been lifted. The only thing that has evolved from the consent decree is those officers involved in the Rampart scandal and Rodney King incidents have since promoted to supervisor, commanders, and command staff, and executive positions."
"This department has not changed from the Daryl Gates and Mark Furman days. Those officers are still employed and have all promoted to Command staff and supervisory positions. I will correct this error. Are you aware that an officer (a rookie/probationer at the time) seen on the Rodney King videotape striking Mr. King multiple times with a
baton on 3/3/91 is still employed by the LAPD and is now a Captain on the police department? Captain Rolando Solano is now the commanding officer of a LAPD police station (West LA division). As a commanding officer, he is now responsible for over 200 officers. Do you trust him to enforce department policy and investigate use of force investigations on arrestees by his officers? Are you aware Evans has since promoted to Sergeant after kicking Mr. Gettler in the face. Oh, you Violated a citizens civil rights? We will promote you. Same as LAPD did with the officers from Metro involved in the May Day melee at MacArthur Park. They promoted them to Sergeant (a supervisory role)." "You can not police yourselves and the consent decree was unsuccessful."
I believe Dorner, and therefore, I disagree with Rice. And, Dorner's assertions can be proven or disproven. Was Evans promoted to Sergeant? Is the Rodney King officer now a Captain?
Now, let's get to examples of Rice's claims that can be tested by evidence or facts.
Rice states that Dorner "claimed" "that he was fired for reporting that his supervisor had illegally kicked an arrestee,(and, according to Rice) which simply wasn't true". Even the LAPD's Dorner Report itself proves that the first part of this assertion is in fact true (contrary to Rice's assertion), i.e., that Dorner "was fired for reporting that his supervisor had illegally kicked an arrestee". The Dorner Report states, in part,"In January 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department terminated Dorner for filing a false complaint against his training officer, in which he alleged his training officer kicked a suspect. . . .' So, even the LAPD admits that this assertion (that Dorner was fired for reporting that his supervisor had illegally kicked an arrestee) was true. And, even if the phrase is interpreted to mean that Rice is saying that Dorner's charge that Evans actually kicked the arrestee is not true; that statement is also false because, in fact, Evans did kick Gettler. And, I believe that I sufficiently proved or demonstrated that above, utilizing some of the LAPD's own evidentiary statements in its Report.
Rice states, "Nothing, of course, can explain or excuse Dorner's murderous rampage". Well, it's certainly debatable whether anything can "excuse" Dorner's killings, but, unquestionably, the killings can be "explained". And, the main explanation is that Dorner was not only unjustly fired, but, he was also illegally fired, e.g., the Superior Court did not invoke the proper standard (the burden resting with the LAPD to prove that Dorner made a false statement) in upholding the Board's decision.
Rice states, "After carefully examining the evidence (what evidence?), I've concluded. . . that he simply used race as a convenient excuse for his failings. Many black officers in the department have drawn the same conclusions." Who are these officers? Why weren't any of them named (besides Earl Paysinger, assistant chief for operations)? And, were there no officers who agreed with Dorner that there is a race problem in the LAPD ? ("A few former African American officers came forward to say that while they didn't support his violence, they too had problems with the way the department had treated them." L.A. Weekly, June 5, 2013, "Christopher Dorner 'Needed to Go,' Civil Rights Lawyer (Rice) Says")). And, the idea and assertion of a black man using race as an excuse for his failings, does that sound familiar? And, what group of people usually assert this contention? Would that be white people?
Rice states, "Dorner not only didn't make an official report of the alleged assault at the time, it appears that he told no one at all about the incident until after he learned that his training officer was giving him failing marks." Sounds familiar? But, the OIG Report stated, "Although Dorner was never specifically asked whether the training officer threatened him with an unsatisfactory rating, his testimony indicated that he was not concerned about receiving such a rating. He testified that he occasionally received "needs improvement" ratings from his training officers on particular areas, but that the bulk of his performance reviews were favorable." At p. 3 of 4. Therefore, Dorner's reporting of Evans' kicking Gettler had nothing to do with any threat of "failing marks". It had everything to do with Evans kicking Gettler, a mentally ill man.
Rice states that Dorner's reporting that Evans kicked Gettler was a "'story' that he was fired because he reported an officer for illegally kicking an arrestee." As I've demonstrated, it wasn't a story (or a lie), it was the truth. Evans kicked Gettler, and the pertinent evidence proves it.
Rice states,"I found that Dorner had a history of making excuses and telling lies to cover his failures in the Police Academy and on the force." What are some examples of that history "in the Police Academy and on the force"? Rice offers none. We, the readers, are supposed to just accept Rice's assertion (about what she found) at face value. I don't.
Rice states, "(D)orner's supervisor had no reputation for brutality or racism". However, Dorner, in his manifesto, states, "What they failed to mention in the BOR was Teresa Evans own use of force history during her career on the LAPD. She has admitted that she has a lengthy use of force record and has been flagged several times by risk management. She has a very well known nickname, Chupacabra, which she was very proud to flaunt around the division. She found it very funny and entertaining to draw blood from suspects and arrestees. At one point she even intentionally ripped the flesh off the arm of a woman we had arrested for battery. . . . Knowing the woman had thin elastic skin, she performed and (sic) Indian burn to the woman's arm after cuffing her. That woman was in her mid-70's, a mother and grandmother. . . . Teresa Evans was also demoted from a senior lead officer rank/position for performance issues." Dorner's statements directly contradict Rice's statement that Evans had no reputation for brutality. And, if one believes Dorner, then Rice's statement must be false, or a lie. I believe Dorner.
Finally, Rice states Dorner "was denigrating the very real changes to the department that have come since, changes that have continued under the city's current police chief, Charlie Beck, who works every day to reinforce racially tolerant and just policing." So, what are the changes? And, if Charlie Beck is working so hard to reinforce racial tolerance, why are young black boys continually racially profiled in Los Angeles? I see it every week and weekend, especially on weekend nights. They are always lined up against the wall, spread eagle, with bicycles nearby. Besides this though, Dorner himself poses questions to Beck:
"Chief Beck, this is when you need to have that come to Jesus talk with Sgt. Teresa Evans and everyone else who was involved in the conspiracy to have me terminated for doing the right thing. (And I now do believe that indeed there was a conspiracy to have Dorner fired--which is deserving of a federal criminal investigation). (Y)ou also need to speak with her attorney, Rico, and his conversation with the BOR members and her confession of guilt in kicking Mr. Gettler. I'll be waiting for a PUBLIC response at a press conference." (I'm now awaiting a public response from Beck as well in reference to the Dorner Report).
"Why didn't you charge me with filing a false police report when I came forward stating that Evans kicked Mr. Christopher Gettler? You file criminal charges against every other officer who is accused and terminated for filing a false report. You didn't because you knew I was innocent and a criminal court would find me innocent and expose your department for suppressing the truth and retaliation, that's why."
Dorner again, as previously stated above, specifically responds to Rice's assertion that there has been "very real changes to the department", "changes that have continued under the city's current police chief" : "This department has not changed from the Daryl Gates and Mark Furman days. Those officers are still employed and have all promoted to Command staff and supervisory positions" (Is this true?). Again, I believe Dorner. Especially where Rice offers no evidence of the so-called changes that have been made in or by the department.
Rice : "We still have a long way to go, but the LAPD's progress is nonetheless remarkable". Again, what progress? What are the significant changes that were made and that can be identified? We are left to accept Rice's word! And, I don't.
Rice, at the end of her article tries to show that the black community is closer to the LAPD by stating that some black residents of L.A.'s Nickerson Gardens vowed to protect some police officers that they knew (from the officers' work around the Gardens) from Dorner (because they were on on Dorner's Hit List). That's preposterous. That's like saying anyone who helped some innocent people, including police, during the Watts riot in 1965, showed progress between the police and the black community. There will always be some people with a "helping heart" who will reach out to help, even to an oppressor, regardless of the oppression. How many of those residents of Nickerson Gardens were rooting for Dorner and had hoped that Dorner had killed more cops? Or would not have volunteered to help the cops that they knew?
The bottomline is : Rice's article appears to have been written solely to support the Dorner Report. But, it fails for the same basic reasons the Dorner Report fails; it's conclusory, biased, and unsupported by relevant evidence or facts, where such is necessary. It's as much bullshit as the Report itself.
Connie Rice appears to be nothing but a "tool" for the LAPD and the L.A. Times when the two organizations need a "black voice" to support the LAPD's actions, and most times, misconduct in dealing with Black citizens. The fact that her positions are so biased in favor of the LAPD, rather than being objectively in favor of the LAPD, with respect to a Black man's claim of unjust treatment or racial discrimination by the LAPD (and his ultimate death), they bespeak of an "Aunt (Uncle) Tom" (speaking on behalf of the white man as if she was the white man speaking, knowing that there is a Black position in existence as well, but choosing to ignore the Black position to advocate for the white position because she feels some "masterful" obligation to do so for whatever her reasons may be).
From my understanding, Rice must have some history with the Black community, in order to be recognized as a civil rights leader in Los Angeles. I know she has said that she has a history of representing Black police officers against the LAPD back in the day. I was too young or perhaps not politically aware enough to have known about her or what she did. And I'm not going to attempt to dispute any legitimate and meaningful civil rights work she did in the past. And, I will assume it was meaningful and productive, because I first became of aware of Rice through the Tavis Smiley "State of the Black Union" Conference, which was televised. Rice was one of the guest speakers. She had apparently established her reputation by that time. So, I will give her her due.
However, since I've been in Los Angeles, having moved here from Ventura, California, where a white judge, Steven Hintz, racially, and with racism, caused the shutdown of my law office, I am not aware of any significant civil rights matters Rice has involved herself in, e.g., the Oscar Grant murder case, which was brought in Oakland, but tried in Los Angeles.
So, my evaluation of her as a civil rights leader in Los Angeles, as well as a Black lawyer in L.A., is based almost solely on her actions or writings in the Dorner case.
NOTE: I did a brief search of Rice so that I could get a better picture of who she is before I give my final assessment of her. In Wikipedia, it states, "As a litigator, Rice has filed class action civil rights cases redressing police misconduct, race and sex discrimination and unfair public policy in transportation, probation and public housing. She filed a landmark case on behalf of the Bus Riders Union that resulted in a mandate that more than $2 billion be spent to improve the Los Angeles Bus System." "In these and other cases, Rice has led multi-racial coalitions of lawyers and clients to win more than $4 billion of injunctive relief and damages."
So, I'm satisfied that Rice has a history of civil rights involvement and that she has fought on behalf of Black police officers before. I applaud her for her efforts and I will not do or say anything that will tend to detract from her efforts in the past.
However, my assessment of Rice now, is based on what I know about her as of my relocation to Los Angeles from Ventura and the years that I 've spent in Los Angeles since. Again, I'm just not aware of anything that I would consider significant that Rice has done on behalf of civil rights or Black people specifically since I've been here. Furthermore, when I was about to sue the Justice Department for violating my civil rights, I tried to contact Rice for either possible representation or a referral. I wrote Rice through her Advancement Project. I never received a response. Moreover, as alluded to above, after the murder of Oscar Grant, and now, Trayvon Martin, I haven't heard anything from Rice. And, I would expect any "real" or "authentic" civil rights leader to at least comment on the cases, one way or the other. But, she does comment on the Chris Dorner case; and my assessment of her will almost wholly be based on the Dorner case.
My assessment of Connie Rice is as follows:
I do not know what has caused or influenced it, but it appears to me that a change has taken place in Connie Rice, somehow, and for some reason. It doesn't appear to me that Rice is the same Connie Rice of yesteryear. Perhaps the years has brought about a change in her. Apparently, it has. What if Chris Dorner had lived? Do you think Connie Rice would represent him as a Black police officer charging the LAPD with racial discrimination (based on her article)? Yet, she is supposed to have a history of representing Black police officers charging race discrimination. Indeed, she says so in her article, "I represented many clients who worked for the department then, including a black lieutenant who was told 40 years ago by his white partner, 'Nigger, get in the car and don't say a thing. The officer then bellowed at him that 'niggers don't back you up!'" Any "real" or "authentic" civil rights lawyer, discounting any issue of expenses, would represent Chris Dorner, regardless of what he or she felt about the case personally. Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., had he lived, would represent Chris Dorner, had he lived.
Connie Rice, today, is not a "real" or "authentic" Black civil rights leader and lawyer (and that's my opinion). In fact, based on her article alone, she gravitates more towards an "Uncle Tom" leader. If one wouldn't know it, one would believe Rice's article was written by a white person. If that same article was issued under another name and the reader had never heard of the person before, I guarantee you the reader would assume that the person was white. This is because the article is so totally one-sided and biased in favor of the LAPD, in view of the LAPD's racial history. If Rice had just presented some favorable information supporting Chris Dorner, and clearly there was some, e.g., the Commission's OIG Report (and Rice doesn't mention the OIG Report in her article), it would have, at least, given the appearance of fairness in her article.
In any event, at this point in time, I believe Connie Rice has lost her way as a Black civil rights leader and lawyer. Thus, she has no credibility with me. Further, and sadly, I have no respect for her as a Black civil rights leader or lawyer.
UPDATE--August 7, 2013
I have now updated my latest blog announcing that Chris Dorner has got his name back.
**UPDATE--December 18, 2013
In the above-mentioned L.A. Times' articles called "The Manhunt", one article states that an LAPD investigation confirmed that Chris Dorner's firing was justified. This blog has specifically responded to the LAPD's Dorner Report, and I found it to be bullshit. Therefore, while the statement is true, because the LAPD's Dorner Report was(is) not credible, the evidence demonstrating that Dorner's firing was not justified remain the strongest, the most credible, and the best. Therefore, I continue to assert, based on much of the evidence advanced in the Dorner Report, that Dorner's firing was not justified, and was a result of racial discrimination by the LAPD.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment