latimes--2020-08-30--Confusion after LAPD response to reports of gunfire at Trump car caravan

A car caravan of Donald Trump supporters parading down Ventura Boulevard turned chaotic Sunday as Los Angeles police searched for three people who might have been involved in an incident connected to the event .
No one was hurt at the rally , and police were still trying to determine exactly what happened .
Authorities were searching for three people in Woodland Hills after police received reports that one of them may have fired some type of weapon at a pro-Trump vehicle caravan .
It was unclear whether there was physical evidence of gunfire or if the reports were based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a report that a man was firing at the caravan as it traveled along Ventura Boulevard near Chalk Hill Court shortly before 11:30 a.m , said Officer Will Cooper of the Los Angeles Police Department .
The incident was initially described as someone brandishing a firearm and throwing bottles at the vehicles but was later updated to include a report of shots fired , he said .
The caravan , composed of cars displaying pro-Trump flags , was heading from Woodland Hills to Studio City .
A woman who was driving east on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like gunshots and noticed her tire went flat , Los Angeles police said in a news release .
When she inspected it , she found it had been damaged by a projectile , possibly a bullet or a bullet fragment , police said .
Another witness told police there was a potential suspect in a nearby apartment building , prompting officers to lock down the Ventura Boulevard complex and evacuate the units .
Jorge Rodriguez , deputy chief of the LAPD Valley Bureau , said the department obtained a photo of a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an apartment unit .
It ’ s unclear what kind of rifle he was holding .
Cooper said the alleged assailant and two others barricaded themselves inside the building in the 20500 block of Ventura Boulevard .
About 4 p.m. , a SWAT unit entered the apartment unit but found no one inside , said Josh Rubenstein , an LAPD spokesman .
Before making entry , officers launched a chemical irritant into the unit to try to flush out any occupants , he said .
Detectives were still at the scene collecting evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the three is being sought as a potential shooter , Rubenstein said .
The others were believed to have been inside the unit when the incident was reported .
Residents in the area said the police standoff was unnerving but were not sure whether there was a shooting .
A helicopter hovered above Tina Johnson ’ s apartment complex as she went to the pool for a quick swim .
She had heard that police were investigating a shooting nearby but didn ’ t realize how close .
Then the leasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barricaded in the building next door .
Johnson and her boyfriend returned to their apartment and locked the doors and windows .
“ It ’ s kind of surreal , ” Johnson , 23 , said .
In liberal California , she had “ never met a Trump supporter.
” But now , here they were , a caravan with Trump flags waving on the back of their pickup trucks cruising down Ventura Boulevard .
The sight and the subsequent confrontation seemed like something that might happen in the South , but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ever imagined it would happen in California , ” Johnson said .
Times staff writer Kevin Rector and photographer Francine Orr contributed to this report .

Alex Wigglesworth, Richard Winton, Angel Jennings, Matthew Ormseth

An LAPD officer and a Trump supporter cross the street between two groups of protesters in Studio City on Sunday.
A car caravan of President Trump supporters parading down Ventura Boulevard turned chaotic Sunday as Los Angeles police searched for three people who might have been involved in an incident connected to the event.
No one was hurt at the rally, and police were still trying to determine exactly what happened.
Authorities were searching for three people in Woodland Hills after police received reports that one of them may have fired some type of weapon at the caravan. It was unclear whether there was physical evidence of gunfire or if the reports were based solely on witness accounts.
Police received a report that a man was firing at the caravan as it traveled along Ventura Boulevard near Chalk Hill Court shortly before 11:30 a.m, said Officer Will Cooper of the Los Angeles Police Department. The incident was initially described as someone brandishing a firearm and throwing bottles at the vehicles but was later updated to include a report of shots fired, he said.
Advertisement
The caravan, composed of cars displaying pro-Trump flags, was heading from Woodland Hills to Studio City.
A woman who was driving east on Ventura past the procession heard what sounded like gunshots and noticed her tire went flat, Los Angeles police said in a news release. When she inspected it, she found it had been damaged by a projectile, possibly a bullet or a bullet fragment, police said.
Another witness told police there was a potential suspect in a nearby apartment building, prompting officers to lock down the Ventura Boulevard complex and evacuate the units.
Jorge Rodriguez, deputy chief of the LAPD Valley Bureau, said the department obtained a photo of a man with a rifle on the balcony of an apartment unit. It’s unclear what kind of rifle he was holding.
Cooper said the alleged assailant and two others barricaded themselves inside the building in the 20500 block of Ventura Boulevard.
About 4 p.m., a SWAT unit entered the apartment unit but found no one inside, said Josh Rubenstein, an LAPD spokesman. Before making entry, officers launched a chemical irritant into the unit to try to flush out any occupants, he said.
Detectives were at the scene collecting evidence to help find the suspects. Only one of the three is being sought as a potential shooter, Rubenstein said. The others were believed to have been inside the unit when the incident was reported.
Deputy Chief Jorge Rodriguez said the LAPD is conducting a search warrant at the apartment and that men were seen fleeing the scene.
“It was not a BB,” he said. “It was possibly a .22 caliber, .25 caliber weapon based on the evidence at the car.”
Residents in the area said the police standoff was unnerving, but they were not sure whether there was a shooting.
A helicopter hovered above Tina Johnson’s apartment complex as she went to the pool for a quick swim.
Advertisement
She had heard that police were investigating a shooting nearby but didn’t realize how close. Then the leasing manager warned her there was a shooter barricaded in the building next door.
Johnson and her boyfriend returned to their apartment and locked the doors and windows.
“It’s kind of surreal,” Johnson, 23, said. In liberal California, she had “never met a Trump supporter.”
But now, here they were, a caravan with Trump flags waving on the back of their pickup trucks cruising down Ventura Boulevard.
The sight and the subsequent confrontation seemed like something that might happen in the South, but not here.
“We wouldn’t have ever imagined it would happen in California,” Johnson said.
Times staff writer Kevin Rector and photographer Francine Orr contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-08-30--California lawmakers vote to phase out toxic firefighting foam

California lawmakers voted on Sunday to phase out the sale and use of firefighting foam containing toxic chemicals that have been linked to cancer and have contaminated drinking water throughout the state .
The measure , put forward by Sen. Ben Allen ( D-Santa Monica ) , requires municipal fire departments , chemical plants and oil refineries to gradually stop using the foam , replacing it with alternatives that don ’ t contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances , a class of chemicals commonly known as PFAS .
Scientists have called PFAS “ forever chemicals ” because they persist indefinitely and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them has been linked to kidney and testicular cancer , as well as high levels of cholesterol , thyroid disease and other serious health problems .
These chemicals have been used for decades in household products including non-stick pans , stain-resistant furniture and food packaging .
But a significant amount of drinking-water contamination comes from their use in firefighting foam , which has been widely employed on military bases , at airports and at industrial sites .
Some local fire departments keep it on hand to quickly extinguish car or airplane fires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fire , the chemicals can soak into the soil , eventually ending up in groundwater .
PFAS contamination is widespread in California , and in much of the United States .
Tests conducted by state regulators last year found 300 drinking-water wells and other water sources that had traces of the chemicals .
The military ’ s decades-long reliance on PFAS-containing firefighting foam has left its mark as well — at least 21 military bases in the state have been contaminated , including six where the chemicals threaten the water supply in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which awaits approval by Gov .
Gavin Newsom , municipal fire departments will be banned from using PFAS-containing foam by Jan. 1 , 2022 .
Chemical plants and airport hangars have until 2024 .
Oil refineries , which fought to be exempt from the prohibition , will be required to stop using the foam by 2028 , unless they qualify for a waiver .
If there ’ s a fire and they spray the foam , they will be required to report the use to the state and contain the spread , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into groundwater .
“ Obviously we ’ re anxious to get PFAS out of the stream , but we wanted this to be workable , ” Allen said , adding that changing how industries respond to fires would probably require expensive investments in new infrastructure .
“ We wanted to give more time to those facilities that have the potential for more dangerous fires , ” he said .
The legislation also sets new rules for how foam that contains PFAS can be disposed of .
Within California , the foam must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that scientists have yet to agree on the best way to get rid of products with chemicals that don ’ t break down .
Avinash Kar , an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council , an environmental advocacy organization that supported the phase-out , said California ’ s legislation is among the toughest in the country .
States including Colorado and Washington have set bans on the sale of the foam , but California ’ s bill prohibits continued use , preventing businesses from stockpiling a product tainted with toxic chemicals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do think they can probably transition sooner ” than the deadlines set in the legislation , Kar said .

Under the Senate bill, oil refineries like this one in Torrance will have until 2028 to replace firefighting foam containing toxic chemicals with a less harmful alternative.
California lawmakers voted Sunday to phase out the sale and use of firefighting foam containing toxic chemicals that have been linked to cancer and have contaminated drinking water throughout the state.
The measure, put forward by state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), requires municipal fire departments, chemical plants and oil refineries to gradually stop using the foam, replacing it with alternatives that don’t contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of chemicals commonly known as PFAS.
Scientists have called PFAS “forever chemicals” because they persist indefinitely and accumulate in the human body. Exposure to them has been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, as well as high levels of cholesterol, thyroid disease and other serious health problems.
Advertisement
These chemicals have been used for decades in household products including nonstick pans, stain-resistant furniture and food packaging. But a significant amount of drinking-water contamination comes from their use in firefighting foam, which has been widely employed on military bases, at airports and at industrial sites. Some fire departments keep it on hand to quickly extinguish car or airplane fires.
Politics California finds widespread water contamination of ‘forever chemicals’ Nearly 300 drinking water wells and other water sources in California have been found to have traces of man-made chemicals linked to cancer.
When the foam is sprayed on a fire, the chemicals can soak into the soil, eventually ending up in groundwater.
PFAS contamination is widespread in California and in much of the United States. Tests conducted by state regulators last year found 300 drinking-water wells and other water sources that had traces of the chemicals.
The military’s decades-long reliance on PFAS-containing firefighting foam has left its mark as well — at least 21 military bases in the state have been contaminated, including six where the chemicals threaten the water supply in nearby communities.
Politics Firefighting foam leaves toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water The Los Angeles Times reviewed hundreds of pages of Pentagon documents and found California has more bases contaminated with the chemicals, known as PFAS, than any other state — at least 21 that exceed federal health guidelines.
Advertisement
Under the new legislation, which awaits approval by Gov. Gavin Newsom, municipal fire departments will be banned from using PFAS-containing foam by Jan. 1, 2022. Chemical plants and airport hangars have until 2024.
Oil refineries, which fought to be exempt from the prohibition, will be required to stop using the foam by 2028, unless they qualify for a waiver. If there’s a fire and they spray the foam, they will be required to report the use to the state and contain the spread, so that the chemicals do not leach into groundwater.
“Obviously we’re anxious to get PFAS out of the stream, but we wanted this to be workable,” Allen said, adding that changing how industries respond to fires would probably require expensive investments in new infrastructure.
“We wanted to give more time to those facilities that have the potential for more dangerous fires,” he said.
The legislation also sets new rules for how foam that contains PFAS can be disposed of. Within California, the foam must be transported safely and stored — a recognition that scientists have yet to agree on the best way to get rid of products with chemicals that don’t break down.
Avinash Kar, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy organization that supported the phaseout, said California’s legislation is among the toughest in the country. States including Colorado and Washington have set bans on the sale of the foam, but California’s bill prohibits continued use, preventing businesses from stockpiling a product tainted with toxic chemicals.
“With the refineries and terminals, we do think they can probably transition sooner” than the deadlines set in the legislation, Kar said.


latimes--2020-08-30--California Democrats scuttle wildfire utility fee plan, turn to Newsom in last-ditch effort

Facing heavy opposition , California lawmakers have scrapped a last-minute bill to extend fees for utility customers and plan to replace it with a more modest call for $ 500 million in emergency fire response and mitigation efforts .
The new proposal requires Gov .
Gavin Newsom to waive a state law that prevents legislators from amending bills in the final hours before the Legislature adjourns for the year .
The decision to abandon Assembly Bill 1659 came just five days after lawmakers introduced the bill .
The legislation ’ s reliance on a 10-year extension of fees on utility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 3 billion to customers — to pay for wildfire mitigation and climate projects drew sharp criticism from ratepayer advocates and utilities .
The new plan , pushed by Democrats in the state Senate , would instead tap into proceeds from California ’ s cap-and-trade program — which requires companies to buy permits to release greenhouse gas emissions — as well as state general fund revenues and a 2018 bond measure .
The money would be spent on a variety of efforts aimed at addressing wildfires and climate change , including cooling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelters , warning and detection systems , hardening projects , forest health and workforce training .
“ We ’ ve had 1.7 million acres that have already burned this year and we haven ’ t even gotten to the peak of wildfire season , ” said state Sen. Ben Allen ( D-Santa Monica ) , who is among the Democrats pushing the proposal .
“ Either we ’ re going to continue spending money to fight the fires and help communities rebuild and address the devastation after the fact , or we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proactive.
” But Allen and other proponents would have to overcome major hurdles to pass the proposal with less than two days left in the legislative year .
Proposition 54 , a 2016 voter-approved amendment to the California Constitution , requires a bill to be in print for 72 hours before the Legislature passes it .
With lawmakers required to adjourn for the year on Monday night , the new proposal would require Newsom to submit a statement to the Legislature saying that it ’ s necessary to address a state of emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to make the bill a majority-vote proposal tied to the state budget , an easier threshold to clear than the two-thirds vote that would have been required to pass AB 1659 .
Newsom likely won ’ t intervene unless the Senate and Assembly reach an agreement to support the new proposal .
Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins ( D-San Diego ) said she was prepared to negotiate .
“ President Pro Tem Toni Atkins is not taking a position on any specific proposal , but is willing and ready to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36 hours , ” Atkins ’ office said in a statement .
But Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon ( D-Lakewood ) questioned whether the bill was necessary to address the state ’ s wildfire emergency .
“ Given the governor ’ s office has not yet engaged with us on this proposal , I don ’ t believe it meets the bar for a waiver of the 72-hour rule , ” Rendon said in a statement .
“ This rule is designed to provide transparency , and overturning it should be done sparingly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues in California , and deserve thoughtful discussion to figure out potential funding proposals.
” Assemblyman Chris Holden ( D-Pasadena ) , the chair of the Assembly utilities and energy committee , strongly objected to the use of ratepayer-raised funds for AB 1659 .
Through a staff member , Holden declined to comment on the replacement proposal because he said he had not been able to review the bill ‘ s language .
Other key members of the Assembly , including Assemblyman Richard Bloom ( D-Santa Monica ) , who introduced AB 1659 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
A spokesman for Newsom declined to comment on the new proposal and whether he would waive the 72-hour rule .
The decision to pare back the original spending plan under AB 1659 comes after the bill faced fierce pushback from businesses and ratepayer advocates .
A coalition of business groups , including the California Chamber of Commerce , the California Farm Bureau Federation , Western States Petroleum Assn .
and other influential groups , sent a letter to the Senate last week opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s three largest investor-owned utilities to pay for projects unrelated to their electrical service .
The business groups wrote that “ choosing to fund bits and pieces of the state ’ s overall wildfire response and non-utility programs and projects solely on the backs of California ’ s ratepayers at a time when businesses are closing , unemployment is skyrocketing , and our economy is faltering is not an appropriate solution.
” AB 1659 would have added 10 years to an existing utility fee , already extended last year by lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by utility equipment .
The extension would have cost ratepayers 96 cents a month , or more than $ 3 billion over 10 years , for bonds used to pay for wildfire prevention work .
Newsom and the Legislature approved AB 1054 to establish the wildfire fund last summer amid pressure from Wall Street to reduce the utility industry ’ s liability for damage linked to their electrical poles and equipment .
The law made it easier for utilities to avoid being on the hook for wildfire damages through a new safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund as an additional shield against losses from blazes linked to their equipment .
Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric have opposed this year ’ s proposal , AB 1659 , saying their customers shouldn ’ t “ shoulder the financial burden for activities and public projects that benefit the entire state.
” “ AB 1659 would impose extra costs on IOU customers , which would be viewed negatively by lenders , ratings agencies , and capital markets , further exacerbating the already challenged credit ratings of the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in the Aug. 27 letter .
“ AB 1659 therefore threatens to undermine the collaborative progress made to restore the financial health of the State ’ s IOUs , while imposing an additional , unnecessary burden on IOU customers.
” The utilities are expected to remain neutral on the replacement proposal since it does not require an extension of the ratepayer fee .
Mark Toney , executive director of the Utility Reform Network , ripped AB 1659 in a legislative hearing this week , saying the bill broke a promise the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs for wildfires would be capped at $ 10.5 billion — the cost of the 15-year fee increase for the wildfire fund .
“ AB 1659 is nothing short of a last-minute backroom deal to loot ratepayers , ” Toney said .

Flames from the River fire crest a ridge as firefighters Ian Johnson, right, and Mike Campbell protect a home in Salinas, Calif., on Aug. 17.
Facing heavy opposition, California lawmakers have scrapped a last-minute bill to extend fees for utility customers and plan to replace it with a more modest call for $500 million in emergency fire response and mitigation efforts.
The new proposal requires Gov. Gavin Newsom to waive a state law that prevents legislators from amending bills in the final hours before the Legislature adjourns for the year.
The decision to abandon Assembly Bill 1659 came just five days after lawmakers introduced the measure. The legislation’s reliance on a 10-year extension of fees on utility bills — at a cost of more than $3 billion to customers — to pay for wildfire mitigation and climate projects drew sharp criticism from ratepayer advocates and utilities.
Advertisement
The new plan, pushed by Democrats in the state Senate, would instead tap into proceeds from California’s cap-and-trade program — which requires companies to buy permits to release greenhouse gas emissions — as well as state general fund revenues and a 2018 bond measure. The money would be spent on a variety of efforts aimed at addressing wildfires and climate change, including cooling centers, back-up solar power, emergency shelters, warning and detection systems, hardening projects, forest health and workforce training.
“We’ve had 1.7 million acres that have already burned this year and we haven’t even gotten to the peak of wildfire season,” said state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who is among the Democrats pushing the proposal. “Either we’re going to continue spending money to fight the fires and help communities rebuild and address the devastation after the fact, or we can try to act now to be more proactive.”
But Allen and other proponents would have to overcome major hurdles to pass the proposal with less than two days left in the legislative year.
Proposition 54, a 2016 voter-approved amendment to the California Constitution, requires a bill to be in print for 72 hours before the Legislature passes it. With lawmakers required to adjourn for the year Monday night, the new proposal would require Newsom to submit a statement to the Legislature saying it’s necessary to address a state of emergency.
If Newsom takes action, legislators plan to make the bill a majority-vote proposal tied to the state budget, an easier threshold to clear than the two-thirds vote that would have been required to pass AB 1659.
Newsom probably won’t intervene unless the Senate and Assembly reach an agreement to support the new proposal.
Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) said she was prepared to negotiate.
Advertisement
Atkins “is not taking a position on any specific proposal, but is willing and ready to engage to get something done in the next 36 hours,” her office said in a statement.
But Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) questioned whether the bill was necessary to address the state’s wildfire emergency.
“Given the governor’s office has not yet engaged with us on this proposal, I don’t believe it meets the bar for a waiver of the 72-hour rule,” Rendon said in a statement. “This rule is designed to provide transparency, and overturning it should be done sparingly. Wildfire prevention and climate change are important issues in California, and deserve thoughtful discussion to figure out potential funding proposals.”
Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), the chair of the Assembly utilities and energy committee, strongly objected to the use of ratepayer-raised funds for AB 1659. Through a staff member, Holden declined to comment on the replacement proposal because he said he had not been able to review the bill‘s language.
Other key members of the Assembly, including Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), who introduced AB 1659, and Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg), did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A spokesman for Newsom declined to comment on the new proposal and whether he would waive the 72-hour rule.
The decision to pare back the original spending plan under AB 1659 comes after the bill faced fierce pushback from businesses and ratepayer advocates.
A coalition of business groups — including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Western States Petroleum Assn. and other influential groups — sent a letter to the Senate last week opposing the bill for requiring customers of the state’s three largest investor-owned utilities to pay for projects unrelated to their electrical service.
The business groups wrote that “choosing to fund bits and pieces of the state’s overall wildfire response and non-utility programs and projects solely on the backs of California’s ratepayers at a time when businesses are closing, unemployment is skyrocketing, and our economy is faltering is not an appropriate solution.”
AB 1659 would have added 10 years to an existing utility fee, already extended last year by lawmakers to 2035 to pay for wildfire damages caused by utility equipment. The extension would have cost ratepayers 96 cents a month, or more than $3 billion over 10 years, for bonds used to pay for wildfire prevention work.
Newsom and the Legislature approved AB 1054 to establish the wildfire fund last summer amid pressure from Wall Street to reduce the utility industry’s liability for damage linked to their electrical poles and equipment. The law made it easier for utilities to avoid being on the hook for wildfire damages through a new safety certification process and created a $21-billion fund as an additional shield against losses from blazes linked to their equipment.
Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric have opposed this year’s proposal, AB 1659, saying their customers shouldn’t “shoulder the financial burden for activities and public projects that benefit the entire state.”
“AB 1659 would impose extra costs on IOU [investor-owned utility] customers, which would be viewed negatively by lenders, ratings agencies, and capital markets, further exacerbating the already challenged credit ratings of the state’s IOUs,” the utilities wrote in the Aug. 27 letter. “AB 1659 therefore threatens to undermine the collaborative progress made to restore the financial health of the state’s IOUs, while imposing an additional, unnecessary burden on IOU customers.”
The utilities are expected to remain neutral on the replacement proposal because it does not require an extension of the ratepayer fee.
Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, ripped AB 1659 in a legislative hearing last week, saying the bill broke a promise the state made last year when it said ratepayer costs for wildfires would be capped at $10.5 billion — the cost of the 15-year fee increase for the wildfire fund.
“AB 1659 is nothing short of a last-minute backroom deal to loot ratepayers,” Toney said.


latimes--2020-08-30--Man shot and killed on 405 Freeway in Seal Beach

Authorities are searching for a suspect who shot and killed a motorist on the 405 Freeway in Seal Beach on @ @ @ @ @ after 6 p.m. to reports of shots fired on the northbound freeway , just south @ @ @ @ @ the California Highway Patrol said in a statement .
They found a light blue Hyundai @ @ @ @ @ area ; inside was a man in his mid-20s who appeared to have suffered a @ @ @ @ @ investigators .
He was pronounced dead at the scene .
His identity was not released @ @ @ @ @ a white Mercedes-Benz S550 that witnesses described as the “ suspect vehicle , ” the @ @ @ @ @ had also collided with a maroon Honda before coming to a stop , authorities said @ @ @ @ @ the scene and was cooperating with the investigation .
The northbound lanes of the 405 @ @ @ @ @ six hours while police investigated .
Anyone with information was asked to call the California @ @ @ @ @ Area office at ( 714 ) 892-4426 .

Authorities are searching for a suspect who shot and killed a motorist on the 405 Freeway in Seal Beach on Saturday.
Officers responded shortly after 6 p.m. to reports of shots fired on the northbound freeway, just south of the 605 Freeway, the California Highway Patrol said in a statement.
They found a light blue Hyundai Elantra in the center divider area; inside was a man in his mid-20s who appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound, according to investigators. He was pronounced dead at the scene. His identity was not released.
Advertisement
Investigators are looking for a white Mercedes-Benz S550 that witnesses described as the “suspect vehicle,” the CHP said.
The Hyundai had also collided with a maroon Honda before coming to a stop, authorities said. That driver remained on the scene and was cooperating with the investigation.
The northbound lanes of the 405 were shut down for about six hours while police investigated. Anyone with information was asked to call the California Highway Patrol’s Westminster Area office at (714) 892-4426.


latimes--2020-08-30--Ex-deputy's murder charge is first in California under new use-of-force law

When San Diego County Dist .
Atty .
Summer Stephan announced last month that former sheriff ’ s Deputy Aaron Russell would face a murder charge in the fatal shooting of a man in May , it wasn ’ t just the first time a law enforcement officer in the county had faced such a charge .
The Russell case also marks the first time a law enforcement officer has been charged in California under a new state law , which went into effect Jan.1 , changing the legal standard that regulates when police can use deadly force .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — if it goes to trial — could be the first test of that new law , AB 392 , that was authored by San Diego Assemblymember Shirley Weber .
Among other things , the law changes the standard for when police can use deadly force from when “ reasonable ” to when “ necessary ” to prevent imminent and serious injury or death .
Yet legal experts say that what exactly that change means — and how lawyers will argue about it , judges interpret it and juries apply it — still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts .
Already one police department is being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union over how that department is training officers on what the new law means .
Nicholas Bils was killed May 1 after he slipped out of a pair of handcuffs and escaped from a state park ranger ’ s car just outside the downtown San Diego Central Jail .
The 36-year-old had been arrested earlier that day for allegedly threatening a ranger with a golf club at Old Town San Diego State Historic Park .
Prosecutors say Russell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jail , fired five shots at Bils , who was unarmed and running away from Russell , a second deputy and two park rangers .
In deciding to charge Russell , prosecutors noted that no other law enforcement officer had pulled a gun .
Stephan said the unprecedented decision to charge Russell with murder was a result of analyzing his actions under the new legal standard of AB 392 .
Russell has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder .
His attorney , Richard Pinckard , declined to comment this week but said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be raised as the case moved forward .
In an earlier statement after Russell ’ s July 14 arraignment , Pinckard pointed to a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Graham vs. Connor , which largely established the legal concept that use of force by police should be judged under the “ reasonable officer on the scene ” standard .
Ed Obayashi , a former police officer and deputy public defender in San Diego , said Pinckard was correct .
Obayashi is now a nationally recognized use-of-force expert and advises numerous law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bottom line , whether he is convicted or not , is still going to hinge on whether his actions or the shooting was reasonable under the circumstances , ” he said .
“ And reasonable means necessary — legally they mean the same thing.
” Not all agree , however .
Adrienna Wong , a lawyer with the ACLU of Southern California , said that it was clear that the law did change the standard for using force .
“ Overall , the standard has changed from reasonable to necessary , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the state legislative analyst and the statements made when Gov .
Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law as evidence that the Legislature intended to make a more exacting standard for police using force .
Even given that , Wong said , the ACLU has found not all agencies agree .
In August the group filed a lawsuit against the Pomona Police Department , contending that the department is undermining the law by continuing to instruct and train its officers that AB 392 “ did not change the legal standard ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the suit .
The lawsuit says the Peace Officers Research Assn .
of California had fought a rear-guard action against the legislation and told departments like Pomona ’ s that the law had not substantively changed .
The suit seeks an injunction that among other things would ban the department from using any resources , including money or employee time , to tell or train officers that the new law does not establish a “ necessary ” standard for use of deadly force .
Brian Marvel , the president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suit but is not a named defendant , said in an email that the bill did , indeed , “ change the law.
” Marvel , however , echoed Obayashi ’ s position by noting “ necessity is determined based on an objectively reasonable officer.
” It is a fine distinction but one that may have to be hashed out and settled in court — perhaps in Russell ’ s case .
“ It all depends on whether a judge or jury takes that word that is there now and says it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an officer , ” said Robert Weisberg , a law professor and faculty co-director of the Criminal Justice Center at Stanford University .
Eugene Iredale , a prominent San Diego civil rights attorney who is representing the Bils family , said that the new law was clear that the standard for using deadly force was raised and that that should not be an issue .
Both he and Weisberg pointed to another element of the law they said strengthened the prosecution ’ s case against Russell .
They noted that the law tightened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at someone who was escaping .
Previously , state law said deadly force could be used only when trying to apprehend a fleeing felon .
The law now says deadly force can be used in that situation only to stop a person suspected of committing a felony that “ threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury , if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended.
” That change made state law track a second U.S. Supreme Court decision , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Tennessee vs. Garner , in which the court ruled police could only use deadly force on someone fleeing if there was the threat of serious injury or death .
But the court did not require states to adopt that standard , Weisberg said , and for years California did not .
Weber ’ s bill now brings state criminal law into accord with that ruling , Weisberg said .
With that in the law , Russell would also have to show he believed the unarmed Bils was “ exhibiting a clear likelihood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
Iredale praised Weber ’ s bill but also said that , based on the case outlined so far , “ with or without that statute , this case would have been charged.
” In an affidavit for the arrest warrant for Russell , a DA investigator wrote that Russell and a second deputy were across the street from the jail when they saw one of Bils ’ arms reaching out the window of a California state park ranger ’ s Ford Crown Victoria as it approached the vehicle gate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out of the vehicle and began running up Front Street .
Russell , holding his lunch tote , a water bottle in one hand and a COVID-19 mask in the other , chased him as he ran toward B Street .
He transferred the mask to his left hand with the other items and unholstered his weapon with his right .
He was 15 to 20 feet away from Bils when he opened fire , the affidavit said .
An autopsy report said Bils was shot at least four times .

When San Diego County Dist. Atty. Summer Stephan announced last month that former sheriff’s Deputy Aaron Russell would face a murder charge in the fatal shooting of a man in May, it wasn’t just the first time a law enforcement officer in the county had faced such a charge.
The Russell case also marks the first time a law enforcement officer has been charged in California under a new state law, which went into effect Jan.1, changing the legal standard that regulates when police can use deadly force.
As a result, Russell’s case — if it goes to trial — could be the first test of that new law, AB 392, that was authored by San Diego Assemblymember Shirley Weber.
Advertisement
Among other things, the law changes the standard for when police can use deadly force from when “reasonable” to when “necessary” to prevent imminent and serious injury or death.
Yet legal experts say that what exactly that change means — and how lawyers will argue about it, judges interpret it and juries apply it — still has to be determined, likely in courts. Already one police department is being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union over how that department is training officers on what the new law means.
Nicholas Bils was killed May 1 after he slipped out of a pair of handcuffs and escaped from a state park ranger’s car just outside the downtown San Diego Central Jail. The 36-year-old had been arrested earlier that day for allegedly threatening a ranger with a golf club at Old Town San Diego State Historic Park.
Prosecutors say Russell, a 23-year-old deputy assigned to work in the jail, fired five shots at Bils, who was unarmed and running away from Russell, a second deputy and two park rangers. In deciding to charge Russell, prosecutors noted that no other law enforcement officer had pulled a gun.
Stephan said the unprecedented decision to charge Russell with murder was a result of analyzing his actions under the new legal standard of AB 392.
Russell has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder. His attorney, Richard Pinckard, declined to comment this week but said previously that “significant defenses” would be raised as the case moved forward.
Advertisement
In an earlier statement after Russell’s July 14 arraignment, Pinckard pointed to a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Graham vs. Connor, which largely established the legal concept that use of force by police should be judged under the “reasonable officer on the scene” standard.
Ed Obayashi, a former police officer and deputy public defender in San Diego, said Pinckard was correct. Obayashi is now a nationally recognized use-of-force expert and advises numerous law enforcement agencies in the state.
“The bottom line, whether he is convicted or not, is still going to hinge on whether his actions or the shooting was reasonable under the circumstances,” he said. “And reasonable means necessary — legally they mean the same thing.”
Not all agree, however. Adrienna Wong, a lawyer with the ACLU of Southern California, said that it was clear that the law did change the standard for using force.
“Overall, the standard has changed from reasonable to necessary,” she said.
She pointed to analyses by the state legislative analyst and the statements made when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law as evidence that the Legislature intended to make a more exacting standard for police using force.
Even given that, Wong said, the ACLU has found not all agencies agree.
In August the group filed a lawsuit against the Pomona Police Department, contending that the department is undermining the law by continuing to instruct and train its officers that AB 392 “did not change the legal standard” for police officers’ use of force, according to the suit.
The lawsuit says the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California had fought a rear-guard action against the legislation and told departments like Pomona’s that the law had not substantively changed.
The suit seeks an injunction that among other things would ban the department from using any resources, including money or employee time, to tell or train officers that the new law does not establish a “necessary” standard for use of deadly force.
Brian Marvel, the president of the research association, which is discussed in the suit but is not a named defendant, said in an email that the bill did, indeed, “change the law.”
Marvel, however, echoed Obayashi’s position by noting “necessity is determined based on an objectively reasonable officer.”
It is a fine distinction but one that may have to be hashed out and settled in court — perhaps in Russell’s case.
“It all depends on whether a judge or jury takes that word that is there now and says it is meant to heighten the burden on an officer,” said Robert Weisberg, a law professor and faculty co-director of the Criminal Justice Center at Stanford University.
Eugene Iredale, a prominent San Diego civil rights attorney who is representing the Bils family, said that the new law was clear that the standard for using deadly force was raised and that that should not be an issue.
Both he and Weisberg pointed to another element of the law they said strengthened the prosecution’s case against Russell. They noted that the law tightened the circumstances for when police could shoot at someone who was escaping.
Previously, state law said deadly force could be used only when trying to apprehend a fleeing felon. The law now says deadly force can be used in that situation only to stop a person suspected of committing a felony that “threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended.”
That change made state law track a second U.S. Supreme Court decision, the 1985 ruling in the case known as Tennessee vs. Garner, in which the court ruled police could only use deadly force on someone fleeing if there was the threat of serious injury or death. But the court did not require states to adopt that standard, Weisberg said, and for years California did not.
Weber’s bill now brings state criminal law into accord with that ruling, Weisberg said. With that in the law, Russell would also have to show he believed the unarmed Bils was “exhibiting a clear likelihood of violence against human beings,” he said.
Iredale praised Weber’s bill but also said that, based on the case outlined so far, “with or without that statute, this case would have been charged.”
In an affidavit for the arrest warrant for Russell, a DA investigator wrote that Russell and a second deputy were across the street from the jail when they saw one of Bils’ arms reaching out the window of a California state park ranger’s Ford Crown Victoria as it approached the vehicle gate to the jail.
Bils was able to get out of the vehicle and began running up Front Street. Russell, holding his lunch tote, a water bottle in one hand and a COVID-19 mask in the other, chased him as he ran toward B Street. He transferred the mask to his left hand with the other items and unholstered his weapon with his right.
He was 15 to 20 feet away from Bils when he opened fire, the affidavit said. An autopsy report said Bils was shot at least four times.
Moran writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.


latimes--2020-08-30--He paved the way for big electronic billboards. Then $75,000 poured in for his reelection

When a real estate developer proposed a $ 1.2-billion skyscraper complex just south of downtown , Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price stepped forward to champion the project , despite warnings that it would accelerate gentrification in South Los Angeles .
Price urged his colleagues to approve the development in 2016 , saying it would create hundreds of jobs .
He also ensured that developer Ara Tavitian received permission to install three huge digital billboards on a 12-story building already located on the site , over strong objections from city planning commissioners .
Three months later , three of Tavitian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 75,000 into a political action committee working to reelect Price .
Construction still hasn ’ t started on the skyscraper complex , which would go up next to the existing building and add 1,444 apartments and condominiums , a 208-room hotel , a supermarket and other attractions .
But the property owners have already installed the digital billboards , sparking complaints from those who live and work nearby .
Jorge Nuño , who ran unsuccessfully against Price in 2017 , said he and his neighbors were stunned by the size and the brightness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three sides of the building , each measuring about 55 feet by 245 feet .
The billboards , which can be seen clearly from the 10 Freeway , are a dangerous distraction for drivers and never would have been allowed in wealthier parts of town , he said .
“ The only ones that are really benefiting from this is the developers — and Curren Price , ” said Nuño , who owns a printing and marketing shop a mile south of the site .
The skyscraper project , which has been marketed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more widely known as the Reef , also emerged recently as one element in the ongoing corruption investigation into City Hall .
Although federal prosecutors do not mention the project by name , key details in a criminal complaint identify the Reef ’ s developer as one of several allegedly squeezed by Councilman Jose Huizar for five-figure donations right before a crucial vote .
Price , whose district includes the Reef , was named in a 2018 search warrant filed by the FBI as part of the probe .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Price or his handling of the Reef .
Prosecutors have not publicly accused Tavitian or his company , PHR LA Mart , of any wrongdoing .
Price has not been arrested or publicly charged .
Even if the Reef ends up as a bit player in the corruption scandal , the project offers an example of a familiar scenario at City Hall : a council member takes crucial steps to help a developer , who in turn spends tens of thousands of dollars on that council member ’ s behalf .
Such spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in exchange for an official action , but can erode public trust in city decisions .
Price declined to answer questions from The Times about the project , the political spending by the Reef ’ s developer and the ongoing federal investigation .
“ Councilmember Price is committed to fully cooperating as requested by the authorities in these important matters , ” said spokeswoman Angelina Valencia in an email .
“ Out of respect for those ongoing matters , he has been advised to not answer these questions at this time.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his office .
Lawyers and a lobbyist for PHR LA Mart did not respond to repeated requests for comment .
Digital billboards are not new to downtown Los Angeles , going up on hotels , apartment buildings and the entertainment zone known as L.A. Live .
But they ’ ve been largely confined to the city ’ s Sports and Entertainment District , which is centered around Staples Center and the city ’ s convention complex .
The Reef property , which sits on the border between downtown and South Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And although it is mostly surrounded by parking lots and government buildings , its new digital signs shine into the windows of nearby homes and offices .
José Tlatenchí , who lives just east of the Reef site , said he and his family have had to shut the curtains at night , or keep the lights on indoors , to cut down the glare .
His teenage daughter , who is autistic , complains regularly about the signs , which are allowed to stay on until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the 60-year-old said in Spanish .
With its mix of condominiums and apartments , the Reef project was marketed to decision makers as a classic transit-oriented development .
The site sits next to the A Line , a light rail route connecting downtown with Long Beach .
Tenants ’ rights groups mobilized to fight the project , saying its luxury offerings would spur nearby landlords to jack up rents or sell their properties to other developers , pushing out families in some of the city ’ s most impoverished neighborhoods .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not displace renters , since it was planned on a series of parking lots .
Mark Williams , then a board member with the nonprofit Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles , said the area desperately needed the investment promised by the Reef .
“ We ’ ve been trying with all our might to gentrify our community , ” he told the planning commission in 2016 .
“ We ’ ve been trying to attract working people , wealthier people to our community .
We need economic integration.
” Tavitian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an affordable housing fund controlled by Price .
Anti-poverty activists , in a pair of raucous City Hall meetings , argued that the contribution fell far short of what the area needed .
Digital signs were a secondary element in the Reef debate .
But when the project came up for its first major hearing in 2016 , Mayor Eric Garcetti ’ s appointees on the planning commission seized on the issue , warning that the electronic billboards would end up shining into people ’ s homes .
Commissioner Samantha Millman pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on another project near the much wealthier area of Hancock Park .
“ I think that South L.A. deserves the same , ” she said during the meeting .
The commission rejected the Reef ’ s digital billboards , agreeing to permit non-electronic signs on the site ’ s existing building .
But when the project reached the council ’ s planning committee three months later , Price worked to reverse that decision , allowing electronic signs as part of the larger Reef project .
Price provided the developer a series of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lucrative .
According to a city analysis , the councilman allowed the digital signs on the existing Reef building to be twice as big as the planning department recommended .
Price also allowed those signs to stay on until 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends — later than planning staff had proposed .
In addition , the councilman allowed the three billboards to change images every eight seconds , instead of the one-minute interval recommended by city planners , ensuring drivers would see multiple ads , not just one , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the digital billboards would be approved with a permit at the Department of Building and Safety , instead of a lengthier review by city planners .
The council backed Price ’ s changes unanimously .
That same month , Ek , Sunkin , Klink and Bai , the City Hall lobbying firm that represented the Reef ’ s developer , were registered as the co-sponsor of a new political action committee known as the Progressive Growth PAC .
The PAC spent about $ 103,000 — about three-fourths of it from companies where Tavitian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both — on activities aimed at reelecting Price in 2017 , according to campaign reports and state business records .
The committee paid for campaign mailers , outdoor signs and pre-recorded phone calls to voters from former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa .
Those pro-Price advertisements named the committee ’ s biggest contributors , including Tavitian ’ s companies .
But they made no mention of Tavitian , the Reef or PHR LA Mart , the Reef ’ s developer .
The average voter would have no idea that those companies were connected to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran against Price that year .
“ That ’ s dark money , ” he said .
“ That ’ s where special interests infiltrate democracy.
” Howard Sunkin , who worked for the Ek firm in 2017 and represents the Reef ’ s developer , did not respond to requests for comment .
After Price won reelection , he and his colleagues finalized the Reef ’ s sign district , which spelled out the rules governing the electronic billboards .
That part of the process caught the attention of federal investigators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huizar .
Prosecutors alleged that Huizar and an aide sought to exploit developers ’ fears that their plans would suffer if they didn ’ t make campaign donations .
Among those targeted was a firm investigators called “ Company I , ” which had a hearing on its sign district scheduled for Oct. 24 , 2017 , according to the indictment .
That was the date that a committee headed by Huizar was set to review the Reef ’ s sign district .
In their indictment , investigators said Huizar kept a spreadsheet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 25,000 to an unnamed political action committee .
But prosecutors did not say whether the company followed through .
The Times was unable to identify a $ 25,000 donation from the Reef developers to any of Huizar ’ s committees .

When a real estate developer proposed a $1.2-billion skyscraper complex just south of downtown, Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price stepped forward to champion the project, despite warnings that it would accelerate gentrification in South Los Angeles.
Price urged his colleagues to approve the development in 2016, saying it would create hundreds of jobs. He also ensured that developer Ara Tavitian received permission to install three huge digital billboards on a 12-story building already located on the site, over strong objections from city planning commissioners.
Three months later, three of Tavitian’s real estate companies poured $75,000 into a political action committee working to reelect Price.
Construction still hasn’t started on the skyscraper complex, which would go up next to the existing building and add 1,444 apartments and condominiums, a 208-room hotel, a supermarket and other attractions. But the property owners have already installed the digital billboards, sparking complaints from those who live and work nearby.
Jorge Nuño, who ran unsuccessfully against Price in 2017, said he and his neighbors were stunned by the size and the brightness of the signs, which wrap around three sides of the building, each measuring about 55 feet by 245 feet.
The billboards, which can be seen clearly from the 10 Freeway, are a dangerous distraction for drivers and never would have been allowed in wealthier parts of town, he said.
“The only ones that are really benefiting from this is the developers — and Curren Price,” said Nuño, who owns a printing and marketing shop a mile south of the site.
Advertisement
The skyscraper project, which has been marketed as Broadway Square Los Angeles, but is more widely known as the Reef, also emerged recently as one element in the ongoing corruption investigation into City Hall.
VIDEO | 00:26 Digital billboards prompt complaints from residents Three digital billboards have gone up on the 12-story building known as The Reef, prompting complaints from residents and business owners. The images can be seen easily from the 10 Freeway.
Although federal prosecutors do not mention the project by name, key details in a criminal complaint identify the Reef’s developer as one of several allegedly squeezed by Councilman Jose Huizar for five-figure donations right before a crucial vote.
Price, whose district includes the Reef, was named in a 2018 search warrant filed by the FBI as part of the probe. However, the 113-page Huizar indictment makes no mention of Price or his handling of the Reef.
Prosecutors have not publicly accused Tavitian or his company, PHR LA Mart, of any wrongdoing. Price has not been arrested or publicly charged.
Even if the Reef ends up as a bit player in the corruption scandal, the project offers an example of a familiar scenario at City Hall: a council member takes crucial steps to help a developer, who in turn spends tens of thousands of dollars on that council member’s behalf. Such spending is generally legal, if it is not in exchange for an official action, but can erode public trust in city decisions.
Price declined to answer questions from The Times about the project, the political spending by the Reef’s developer and the ongoing federal investigation.
“Councilmember Price is committed to fully cooperating as requested by the authorities in these important matters,” said spokeswoman Angelina Valencia in an email. “Out of respect for those ongoing matters, he has been advised to not answer these questions at this time.”
Advertisement
The Reef skyscraper complex, later marketed as Broadway Square Los Angeles, would bring more than 1,400 apartments and condominiums to a 9.7-acre site on the border between downtown and South Los Angeles. (Gensler)
Tavitian did not respond to messages left at his office. Lawyers and a lobbyist for PHR LA Mart did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Digital billboards are not new to downtown Los Angeles, going up on hotels, apartment buildings and the entertainment zone known as L.A. Live. But they’ve been largely confined to the city’s Sports and Entertainment District, which is centered around Staples Center and the city’s convention complex.
The Reef property, which sits on the border between downtown and South Los Angeles, is well outside that district. And although it is mostly surrounded by parking lots and government buildings, its new digital signs shine into the windows of nearby homes and offices.
José Tlatenchí, who lives just east of the Reef site, said he and his family have had to shut the curtains at night, or keep the lights on indoors, to cut down the glare. His teenage daughter, who is autistic, complains regularly about the signs, which are allowed to stay on until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
“Sometimes I can’t sleep,” the 60-year-old said in Spanish.
José Tlatenchí lives with his family on Washington Boulevard, where a digital billboard shines into his apartment. He relies on curtains to block out the light. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)
With its mix of condominiums and apartments, the Reef project was marketed to decision makers as a classic transit-oriented development. The site sits next to the A Line, a light rail route connecting downtown with Long Beach.
Advertisement
Tenants’ rights groups mobilized to fight the project, saying its luxury offerings would spur nearby landlords to jack up rents or sell their properties to other developers, pushing out families in some of the city’s most impoverished neighborhoods.
Backers of the project insisted the Reef would not displace renters, since it was planned on a series of parking lots. Mark Williams, then a board member with the nonprofit Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles, said the area desperately needed the investment promised by the Reef.
“We’ve been trying with all our might to gentrify our community,” he told the planning commission in 2016. “We’ve been trying to attract working people, wealthier people to our community. We need economic integration.”
Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price, pictured in 2014, declined to answer questions from The Times about the Reef. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)
Tavitian agreed to put $15 million into an affordable housing fund controlled by Price. Anti-poverty activists, in a pair of raucous City Hall meetings, argued that the contribution fell far short of what the area needed.
Digital signs were a secondary element in the Reef debate. But when the project came up for its first major hearing in 2016, Mayor Eric Garcetti’s appointees on the planning commission seized on the issue, warning that the electronic billboards would end up shining into people’s homes.
Advertisement
Commissioner Samantha Millman pointed out that the panel had rejected digital billboards on another project near the much wealthier area of Hancock Park. “I think that South L.A. deserves the same,” she said during the meeting.
The commission rejected the Reef’s digital billboards, agreeing to permit non-electronic signs on the site’s existing building. But when the project reached the council’s planning committee three months later, Price worked to reverse that decision, allowing electronic signs as part of the larger Reef project.
Price provided the developer a series of other concessions, making the billboards even more lucrative.
Three digital billboards were attached to the 1958 building known as the Reef on Washington Boulevard. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)
According to a city analysis, the councilman allowed the digital signs on the existing Reef building to be twice as big as the planning department recommended. Price also allowed those signs to stay on until 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends — later than planning staff had proposed.
In addition, the councilman allowed the three billboards to change images every eight seconds, instead of the one-minute interval recommended by city planners, ensuring drivers would see multiple ads, not just one, as they passed by. And he ensured the digital billboards would be approved with a permit at the Department of Building and Safety, instead of a lengthier review by city planners.
The council backed Price’s changes unanimously. That same month, Ek, Sunkin, Klink and Bai, the City Hall lobbying firm that represented the Reef’s developer, were registered as the co-sponsor of a new political action committee known as the Progressive Growth PAC.
Advertisement
The PAC spent about $103,000 — about three-fourths of it from companies where Tavitian is an owner, a manager or both — on activities aimed at reelecting Price in 2017, according to campaign reports and state business records. The committee paid for campaign mailers, outdoor signs and pre-recorded phone calls to voters from former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Those pro-Price advertisements named the committee’s biggest contributors, including Tavitian’s companies. But they made no mention of Tavitian, the Reef or PHR LA Mart, the Reef’s developer.
The average voter would have no idea that those companies were connected to the skyscraper complex, said Nuño, who ran against Price that year.
“That’s dark money,” he said. “That’s where special interests infiltrate democracy.”
Businessman Jorge Nuño, who ran against Councilman Curren Price in 2017, said voters would not have known from campaign ads that the Reef’s developer was bankrolling Price. (Leroy Hamilton / 2017 Nuño campaign)
Howard Sunkin, who worked for the Ek firm in 2017 and represents the Reef’s developer, did not respond to requests for comment.
Advertisement
After Price won reelection, he and his colleagues finalized the Reef’s sign district, which spelled out the rules governing the electronic billboards. That part of the process caught the attention of federal investigators, who highlighted it in their case against Huizar.
Prosecutors alleged that Huizar and an aide sought to exploit developers’ fears that their plans would suffer if they didn’t make campaign donations. Among those targeted was a firm investigators called “Company I,” which had a hearing on its sign district scheduled for Oct. 24, 2017, according to the indictment.
That was the date that a committee headed by Huizar was set to review the Reef’s sign district.
In their indictment, investigators said Huizar kept a spreadsheet that showed that Company I had pledged $25,000 to an unnamed political action committee. But prosecutors did not say whether the company followed through.
The Times was unable to identify a $25,000 donation from the Reef developers to any of Huizar’s committees.


latimes--2020-08-30--Police PR machine under scrutiny for inaccurate reporting, alleged pro-cop bias

The cellphone video drew outrage from the moment it surfaced .
The footage showed deputies shooting a man as he walked away from them and continuing to fire at him , 33 rounds in all , as he crawled on the concrete .
As protests grew over the shooting , the communications staff within the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’ s Department advocated for breaking protocol by releasing a new video and image ; these showed the man , Nicholas Robertson , holding a gun when he was shot on Dec. 12 , 2015 .
The move appeared to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material came out .
A leading activist backed away from calling the killing an “ execution , ” and the media gave ample coverage of the department ’ s narrative that Robertson was a persistent threat , having shot into the air before deputies arrived .
But it wasn ’ t the full account .
Two years later , a more close-up video emerged that contradicted the deputies ’ claims : Robertson did not point the gun at deputies just before the shooting , and the gun was not loaded .
The revelations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to Robertson ’ s family , citing negligence by the deputies .
The evolving narrative of the Robertson shooting is a vivid illustration of the key role that law enforcement public relations units have come to play in shaping the public ’ s understanding of confrontations with police .
The units are an influential yet little-examined arm of law enforcement , with staffers sometimes applying the principles of crisis communications when their officers ’ actions spark controversy .
As cellphone videos increasingly draw people to the streets to protest law enforcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny , with some critics saying their reports protect the image of officers and taint people targeted by police .
In the wake of protests over the killing of George Floyd , there are growing questions over whether these units are serving the public with unbiased facts or are getting in the way of the truth .
“ We ’ re spending good money to be lied to , ” said Reuben Jones , a criminal justice reform advocate and executive director of Frontline Dads , a group supporting formerly incarcerated people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own communications teams simply to craft a narrative that best serves their interests ?
” Inaccurate police accounts are sometimes due to the information fog of a fast-moving event .
But critics say police press operations nearly always put forth a story line that makes officers ’ actions appear justified .
And when police spokespeople publicize the prior criminal history of people killed by law enforcement or call them “ gang members , ” it amounts to an insidious form of police abuse , they say .
Recent polling shows there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversight of police behavior .
Some say this should extend to police press shops , which should focus less on advancing a narrative and more on relaying facts without spin .
That includes the timely release of footage from body cameras , details about officers who discharge their weapons and other information requested by community members — even if it doesn ’ t necessarily make the department look good .
Law enforcement agencies argue that their public affairs teams are essential to getting out vital information quickly and defend the tactics and size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Sheriff ’ s Department had 42 people in its information bureau as of last month , at an annual cost of about $ 4.8 million .
The strategic communications director at the time of Robertson ’ s killing earned $ 200,000 a year ; the bureau ’ s captain last year made $ 218,000 .
The Los Angeles Police Department spends about $ 3.29 million a year for 25 people in similar units , as of last month .
One incident criticized as a public relations move was the LAPD ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show the moments before Carnell Snell Jr. was shot and killed by an officer on Oct. 1 , 2016 .
Snell was riding in the back seat of a car that was pulled over by police who suspected it was stolen .
Snell ran out of the car and was chased by officers , who fired six rounds , hitting the 18-year-old three times .
Faced with an outcry by people saying Snell didn ’ t have a weapon , Charlie Beck , the LAPD chief at the time , released surveillance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police chase , with Snell holding a handgun .
But the video did not show the shooting , leaving community members to question why the footage was released .
A handgun was found at the scene , but the recording didn ’ t confirm the officers ’ claims that Snell turned toward them holding a weapon at the time he was shot .
An autopsy would later reveal that Snell was shot in the back , right thigh and left forearm .
Prosecutors and the police commission found the shooting was justified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the officers ’ tactics , including splitting up while chasing Snell .
Lack of video of the actual shooting left open the possibility in the minds of some community members that it was unjustified .
They saw the police ’ s release of the footage of Snell with a handgun as a way to make the public assume Snell was at fault in some way .
“ They engage in this practice that we call ‘ double murder.
’ They first kill the body , and then they assassinate the character , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies at Cal State L.A. and co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles , said of the police .
“ And they use these videos for character assassination , which in the minds of the public gives an excuse for their death .
So they really blame the victims for their own deaths.
” Abdullah questioned why the police department was willing to immediately publicize the video of Snell but not release video from all other critical incidents .
She said that while the agency now releases footage more quickly , the videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that supports the viewpoint of law enforcement .
Josh Rubenstein , LAPD ’ s public information director , said the agency released the video of Snell in response to inaccurate reports that he had not been carrying a gun .
He said the department has a responsibility to provide context in the face of false or “ purposely malicious ” information that ’ s intended to inflame a “ negative sentiment toward the department.
” He said the agency ’ s inspector general reviews videos of critical incidents to make sure they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public information officers have taken on an expanded role within police departments in recent years , with the ability to publish news on their own platforms , including social media , instead of relying on traditional media .
Many members of the information teams wear the same uniforms as their fellow officers , having moved from street policing to desk work , sometimes as a way to get promoted or paid more .
Others are civilians , including former journalists .
Their proponents believe robust public affairs operations are needed to build ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when cellphone videos can instantly spark a whirlwind of attention , and sometimes misinformation , departments feel they must act quickly to provide answers and educate the public about why officers do what they do .
Without these units , some argue , departments wouldn ’ t have dedicated staff to answer questions , and reporters could face even more barriers in trying to get information .
Indeed , some police departments have hired “ transparency advisors ” to enhance their communication with the public .
One such firm , Cole Pro Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be more forthcoming and avoid spin .
Laura Cole , a former journalist who founded the firm , says she counsels agencies , some of which pay up to $ 4,000 a month , to avoid describing people killed by officers as “ suspects ” or “ gang members.
” She also advises them to have higher standards in verifying information that is made public .
“ When departments don ’ t give out information , it brings about secrecy .
That ’ s what we want to avoid .
If a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messed up , they must own it .
And they need to be the ones to tell the community , ” said Cole .
Carol Lin , who was strategic communications director for the L.A. County Sheriff ’ s Department at the time of the Robertson shooting , pushed for the unusual release of video the day after the incident .
She said the decision was influenced partly by concern over the growing protests at the scene but was not meant to stifle dissent ; rather , she said , it was meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now a senior advisor to the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office , said the release of new evidence helped the public understand that deputies were responding to a call about a man shooting into the air who was potentially dangerous to passersby .
“ To the public it looked horrible that deputies were just taking down a helpless individual with complete disregard for life , ” she said .
`` [ But the deputies ] did it because they saw the risk .
There were people nearby gassing up their cars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ take , that this individual could discharge his weapon.
” Asked if the department would have released video that reflected poorly on the deputies ’ actions , Lin said , “ That is a good question .
I was never in a situation where that was even an option.
” These days at the Sheriff ’ s Department , which is under new leadership since the Robertson shooting , decisions to release video during an ongoing investigation would come only from detectives or the sheriff and wouldn ’ t involve the information bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bureau is open around the clock to notify the public about emergencies like natural disasters , road closures and missing children .
Its staff also coordinate numerous other functions , such as deputy award ceremonies , video production and liaising between department members and international police .
Satterfield defended the bureau ’ s work , saying it strives to provide the most accurate available information to the public .
“ In order to be effective , peace officers and the law enforcement profession need to be seen as a legitimate authority who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust and respect , ” Satterfield said in a statement .
“ It is naive not to acknowledge there are those who actively distort information in an effort to negatively alter the perception of law enforcement.
” Satterfield said the agency — which has recently been criticized for failing to release records — prides itself on its transparency and accuracy .
Yet family members of people slain by deputies more than a year ago have still not been given access to video footage they requested of the shootings , according to a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Board of Supervisors .
The motion called for the sheriff ’ s information bureau to be repurposed to comply with laws that require the release of video of uses of force within 60 days .
In many cases , problematic actions by the police are compounded by false information from their press operations .
After a South Carolina police officer fatally shot Walter Scott in 2015 , the officer ’ s agency claimed in a news release that Scott was trying to shoot the lawman with a Taser .
A cellphone video later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away when he was killed .
In 2014 , Chicago police said in a statement that 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was moving toward officers with a knife when they fatally shot him .
But dash-cam video showed that the youth , armed with a blade , was moving away from lawmen and was shot repeatedly when he was already on the ground .
In the hours after Floyd ’ s killing on Memorial Day , few within the Minneapolis Police Department seemed to know the truth about what had happened .
The body-camera footage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers involved didn ’ t give a statement accessible to the public information officer .
Neither he nor the supervisors supplying him with information had been to the scene .
But the department ’ s press office acted anyway , with a statement its director now says was inaccurate .
“ Man dies after medical incident during police interaction ” was the headline on a statement that John Elder , the department ’ s director of public information , issued hours after Floyd was killed .
The announcement said officers detained a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ noted that he appeared to be suffering medical distress ” before he was transported to a hospital .
No mention that an officer used his knee to pin Floyd ’ s neck against the ground for nearly nine minutes .
And no mention that Floyd was on his stomach , handcuffed and not resisting as he pleaded for breath .
Elder said he got his information from sergeants who work in the area where Floyd was killed and from computer-aided dispatch , which serves as a log of communications between officers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , didn ’ t include any details about the use of force .
Elder did not review the body-camera footage , which he said would have required a wait of several hours .
Only later , when cellphone video emerged , did Elder realize that his press release was inaccurate .
“ This had literally zero intent to deceive or be dishonest or disingenuous .
Had we known that this [ situation ] was what we saw on the video , that statement would have been completely different , ” Elder said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change the statement or issue an update because the case was handed over to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension , a different agency .
Elder , who said he earns about $ 110,000 per year , said his department employs two additional people in the press office , one of whom is a videographer who makes content about officers doing good works , among other assignments .
The Minneapolis City Council voted last month to eliminate the police press office , effective in October , citing concerns over accuracy and bias .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police .
The media play a significant role in amplifying statements by police and allowing law enforcement sources to be the primary — and sometimes the only — voices in a story .
And even as news organizations are trying to revamp their coverage of police , cuts in the industry mean there are fewer journalists to respond to scenes and develop diverse sources , at a time when there is more pressure to provide instant news .
Many police officers feel misrepresented in the media .
But unlike victims of police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at their disposal to generate favorable narratives about themselves .
Sometimes that means bolstering the public affairs staff with outside communication firms , at considerable cost .
In Fullerton , it started with the uproar over the fatal beating of Kelly Thomas by police in 2011 .
The police chief worried that protests would swell if the officers involved were acquitted of charges in the killing of Thomas , a homeless man who did not resist and begged for his life as officers beat him .
So the city hired Cornerstone Communications , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the police department to tell its side of the story .
The Fullerton Police News , as the website was called , featured pieces on the department ’ s use of de-escalation tactics and medal of valor ceremonies .
The PR firm also pushed the agency to be more open by facilitating an interview in which the police chief publicly admitted that his team “ blew it ” in handling the Thomas case .
The mistakes included releasing inaccurate information that an officer ’ s bones were broken in the struggle with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiment led to Cornerstone establishing a broader platform , the website Behind the Badge , which has featured stories about the police departments of La Habra , Santa Ana , Tustin , Westminster and Pasadena .
Each city pays an annual fee for the promotional service , ranging from $ 24,000 for Santa Ana to $ 72,000 for Pasadena , which recently ended its involvement .
Recent stories included a tribute to a deputy chief in Tustin who was retiring after 31 years and a feature on Westminster police holding a “ drive-by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sirens and flashing lights .
Bill Rams , a former reporter at the Orange County Register who co-founded Cornerstone Communications , said that with local newspapers disappearing , the website publishes stories that wouldn ’ t otherwise be told .
He said the cost is small compared to what departments would have to pay for in-house PR professionals .
But Priscilla Ocen , a Loyola Law School professor and member of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission in Los Angeles County , said it ’ s troubling that law enforcement would spend money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The idea that police spend money to manipulate the narrative about the work they ’ re doing is not the best use of public funds , ” she said .
“ I think they should be straightforward with the public .
”

The cellphone video drew outrage from the moment it surfaced. The footage showed deputies shooting a man as he walked away from them and continuing to fire at him, 33 rounds in all, as he crawled on the concrete.
As protests grew over the shooting, the communications staff within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department advocated for breaking protocol by releasing a new video and image; these showed the man, Nicholas Robertson, holding a gun when he was shot on Dec. 12, 2015.
The move appeared to work: Protests died down once the new material came out. A leading activist backed away from calling the killing an “execution,” and the media gave ample coverage of the department’s narrative that Robertson was a persistent threat, having shot into the air before deputies arrived.
But it wasn’t the full account. Two years later, a more close-up video emerged that contradicted the deputies’ claims: Robertson did not point the gun at deputies just before the shooting, and the gun was not loaded. The revelations led a jury to award $3.6 million to Robertson’s family, citing negligence by the deputies.
The evolving narrative of the Robertson shooting is a vivid illustration of the key role that law enforcement public relations units have come to play in shaping the public’s understanding of confrontations with police. The units are an influential yet little-examined arm of law enforcement, with staffers sometimes applying the principles of crisis communications when their officers’ actions spark controversy.
Advertisement
As cellphone videos increasingly draw people to the streets to protest law enforcement, police public information officers are under more scrutiny, with some critics saying their reports protect the image of officers and taint people targeted by police. In the wake of protests over the killing of George Floyd, there are growing questions over whether these units are serving the public with unbiased facts or are getting in the way of the truth.
“We’re spending good money to be lied to,” said Reuben Jones, a criminal justice reform advocate and executive director of Frontline Dads, a group supporting formerly incarcerated people in Philadelphia. “Do the police need their own communications teams simply to craft a narrative that best serves their interests?”
Inaccurate police accounts are sometimes due to the information fog of a fast-moving event. But critics say police press operations nearly always put forth a story line that makes officers’ actions appear justified. And when police spokespeople publicize the prior criminal history of people killed by law enforcement or call them “gang members,” it amounts to an insidious form of police abuse, they say.
Recent polling shows there is growing support for more extensive, independent oversight of police behavior. Some say this should extend to police press shops, which should focus less on advancing a narrative and more on relaying facts without spin. That includes the timely release of footage from body cameras, details about officers who discharge their weapons and other information requested by community members — even if it doesn’t necessarily make the department look good.
Law enforcement agencies argue that their public affairs teams are essential to getting out vital information quickly and defend the tactics and size of the units. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had 42 people in its information bureau as of last month, at an annual cost of about $4.8 million. The strategic communications director at the time of Robertson’s killing earned $200,000 a year; the bureau’s captain last year made $218,000. The Los Angeles Police Department spends about $3.29 million a year for 25 people in similar units, as of last month.
One incident criticized as a public relations move was the LAPD’s decision to swiftly release a video purporting to show the moments before Carnell Snell Jr. was shot and killed by an officer on Oct. 1, 2016.
Snell was riding in the back seat of a car that was pulled over by police who suspected it was stolen. Snell ran out of the car and was chased by officers, who fired six rounds, hitting the 18-year-old three times.
Faced with an outcry by people saying Snell didn’t have a weapon, Charlie Beck, the LAPD chief at the time, released surveillance footage that appeared to show part of the police chase, with Snell holding a handgun.
Advertisement
But the video did not show the shooting, leaving community members to question why the footage was released. A handgun was found at the scene, but the recording didn’t confirm the officers’ claims that Snell turned toward them holding a weapon at the time he was shot.
An autopsy would later reveal that Snell was shot in the back, right thigh and left forearm. Prosecutors and the police commission found the shooting was justified, though the commission faulted some of the officers’ tactics, including splitting up while chasing Snell.
Community members who protested at LAPD headquarters over the shooting death of Carnell Snell Jr. said a lack of video left open the possibility that the killing was unjustified. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)
Lack of video of the actual shooting left open the possibility in the minds of some community members that it was unjustified. They saw the police’s release of the footage of Snell with a handgun as a way to make the public assume Snell was at fault in some way.
“They engage in this practice that we call ‘double murder.’ They first kill the body, and then they assassinate the character,” Melina Abdullah, a professor of pan-African studies at Cal State L.A. and co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, said of the police. “And they use these videos for character assassination, which in the minds of the public gives an excuse for their death. So they really blame the victims for their own deaths.”
Abdullah questioned why the police department was willing to immediately publicize the video of Snell but not release video from all other critical incidents. She said that while the agency now releases footage more quickly, the videos are edited and packaged in a way that supports the viewpoint of law enforcement.
Josh Rubenstein, LAPD’s public information director, said the agency released the video of Snell in response to inaccurate reports that he had not been carrying a gun. He said the department has a responsibility to provide context in the face of false or “purposely malicious” information that’s intended to inflame a “negative sentiment toward the department.” He said the agency’s inspector general reviews videos of critical incidents to make sure they’re portrayed in a balanced way.
***
Public information officers have taken on an expanded role within police departments in recent years, with the ability to publish news on their own platforms, including social media, instead of relying on traditional media.
Many members of the information teams wear the same uniforms as their fellow officers, having moved from street policing to desk work, sometimes as a way to get promoted or paid more. Others are civilians, including former journalists.
Their proponents believe robust public affairs operations are needed to build ties with the community. In an era when cellphone videos can instantly spark a whirlwind of attention, and sometimes misinformation, departments feel they must act quickly to provide answers and educate the public about why officers do what they do. Without these units, some argue, departments wouldn’t have dedicated staff to answer questions, and reporters could face even more barriers in trying to get information.
Indeed, some police departments have hired “transparency advisors” to enhance their communication with the public. One such firm, Cole Pro Media, advises law enforcement organizations on how to be more forthcoming and avoid spin. Laura Cole, a former journalist who founded the firm, says she counsels agencies, some of which pay up to $4,000 a month, to avoid describing people killed by officers as “suspects” or “gang members.” She also advises them to have higher standards in verifying information that is made public.
“When departments don’t give out information, it brings about secrecy. That’s what we want to avoid. If a department did something wrong, or somebody messed up, they must own it. And they need to be the ones to tell the community,” said Cole.
Carol Lin, who was strategic communications director for the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department at the time of the Robertson shooting, pushed for the unusual release of video the day after the incident. She said the decision was influenced partly by concern over the growing protests at the scene but was not meant to stifle dissent; rather, she said, it was meant to provide missing context.
Lin, now a senior advisor to the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office, said the release of new evidence helped the public understand that deputies were responding to a call about a man shooting into the air who was potentially dangerous to passersby.
Years after Nicholas Robertson was killed by deputies, a new video emerged contradicting the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s account that he had pointed a gun at lawmen. (Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times)
“To the public it looked horrible that deputies were just taking down a helpless individual with complete disregard for life,” she said. “[But the deputies] did it because they saw the risk. There were people nearby gassing up their cars. It was risk they couldn’t take, that this individual could discharge his weapon.”
Asked if the department would have released video that reflected poorly on the deputies’ actions, Lin said, “That is a good question. I was never in a situation where that was even an option.”
These days at the Sheriff’s Department, which is under new leadership since the Robertson shooting, decisions to release video during an ongoing investigation would come only from detectives or the sheriff and wouldn’t involve the information bureau, according to Lt. John Satterfield. The bureau is open around the clock to notify the public about emergencies like natural disasters, road closures and missing children. Its staff also coordinate numerous other functions, such as deputy award ceremonies, video production and liaising between department members and international police. Satterfield defended the bureau’s work, saying it strives to provide the most accurate available information to the public.
“In order to be effective, peace officers and the law enforcement profession need to be seen as a legitimate authority who is worthy of the community’s trust and respect,” Satterfield said in a statement. “It is naive not to acknowledge there are those who actively distort information in an effort to negatively alter the perception of law enforcement.”
Satterfield said the agency — which has recently been criticized for failing to release records — prides itself on its transparency and accuracy.
Yet family members of people slain by deputies more than a year ago have still not been given access to video footage they requested of the shootings, according to a recent motion passed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The motion called for the sheriff’s information bureau to be repurposed to comply with laws that require the release of video of uses of force within 60 days.
In many cases, problematic actions by the police are compounded by false information from their press operations.
After a South Carolina police officer fatally shot Walter Scott in 2015, the officer’s agency claimed in a news release that Scott was trying to shoot the lawman with a Taser. A cellphone video later showed that Scott was unarmed and running away when he was killed. In 2014, Chicago police said in a statement that 17-year-old Laquan McDonald was moving toward officers with a knife when they fatally shot him. But dash-cam video showed that the youth, armed with a blade, was moving away from lawmen and was shot repeatedly when he was already on the ground.
****
In the hours after Floyd’s killing on Memorial Day, few within the Minneapolis Police Department seemed to know the truth about what had happened. The body-camera footage hadn’t been reviewed. The officers involved didn’t give a statement accessible to the public information officer. Neither he nor the supervisors supplying him with information had been to the scene.
But the department’s press office acted anyway, with a statement its director now says was inaccurate.
“Man dies after medical incident during police interaction” was the headline on a statement that John Elder, the department’s director of public information, issued hours after Floyd was killed. The announcement said officers detained a man, later identified as Floyd, and “noted that he appeared to be suffering medical distress” before he was transported to a hospital.
No mention that an officer used his knee to pin Floyd’s neck against the ground for nearly nine minutes. And no mention that Floyd was on his stomach, handcuffed and not resisting as he pleaded for breath.
Elder said he got his information from sergeants who work in the area where Floyd was killed and from computer-aided dispatch, which serves as a log of communications between officers and dispatchers. The log, it turned out, didn’t include any details about the use of force. Elder did not review the body-camera footage, which he said would have required a wait of several hours. Only later, when cellphone video emerged, did Elder realize that his press release was inaccurate.
“This had literally zero intent to deceive or be dishonest or disingenuous. Had we known that this [situation] was what we saw on the video, that statement would have been completely different,” Elder said.
An inaccurate press release issued after the death of George Floyd, describing his killing as a “medical incident,” played a role in spurring the Minneapolis City Council to eliminate the job of police public information officer. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
He said he can’t change the statement or issue an update because the case was handed over to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, a different agency.
Elder, who said he earns about $110,000 per year, said his department employs two additional people in the press office, one of whom is a videographer who makes content about officers doing good works, among other assignments.
The Minneapolis City Council voted last month to eliminate the police press office, effective in October, citing concerns over accuracy and bias. The city will take over communications about the police.
***
The media play a significant role in amplifying statements by police and allowing law enforcement sources to be the primary — and sometimes the only — voices in a story. And even as news organizations are trying to revamp their coverage of police, cuts in the industry mean there are fewer journalists to respond to scenes and develop diverse sources, at a time when there is more pressure to provide instant news.
Many police officers feel misrepresented in the media. But unlike victims of police shootings, law enforcers have public funding at their disposal to generate favorable narratives about themselves.
Sometimes that means bolstering the public affairs staff with outside communication firms, at considerable cost.
In Fullerton, it started with the uproar over the fatal beating of Kelly Thomas by police in 2011.
The police chief worried that protests would swell if the officers involved were acquitted of charges in the killing of Thomas, a homeless man who did not resist and begged for his life as officers beat him.
Friends, family and supporters stand at “Kelly’s Corner” after two Fullerton police officers were found not guilty in the fatal beating of Kelly Thomas in 2011. (Los Angeles Times)
So the city hired Cornerstone Communications, an Irvine-based company that created a site for the police department to tell its side of the story.
The Fullerton Police News, as the website was called, featured pieces on the department’s use of de-escalation tactics and medal of valor ceremonies. The PR firm also pushed the agency to be more open by facilitating an interview in which the police chief publicly admitted that his team “blew it” in handling the Thomas case. The mistakes included releasing inaccurate information that an officer’s bones were broken in the struggle with Thomas, the chief said.
That experiment led to Cornerstone establishing a broader platform, the website Behind the Badge, which has featured stories about the police departments of La Habra, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster and Pasadena. Each city pays an annual fee for the promotional service, ranging from $24,000 for Santa Ana to $72,000 for Pasadena, which recently ended its involvement.
Recent stories included a tribute to a deputy chief in Tustin who was retiring after 31 years and a feature on Westminster police holding a “drive-by” birthday celebration involving a motorcade with sirens and flashing lights.
Bill Rams, a former reporter at the Orange County Register who co-founded Cornerstone Communications, said that with local newspapers disappearing, the website publishes stories that wouldn’t otherwise be told. He said the cost is small compared to what departments would have to pay for in-house PR professionals.
But Priscilla Ocen, a Loyola Law School professor and member of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission in Los Angeles County, said it’s troubling that law enforcement would spend money to shape how the public views them.
“The idea that police spend money to manipulate the narrative about the work they’re doing is not the best use of public funds,” she said. “I think they should be straightforward with the public.”