Yesterday, the DN linked to an NPR story that was billed as a profile of Officer Jennifer Grasso, the first woman to enter the LAPD's SWAT school. Interestingly, the only thing it said about Grasso was that she refused to be interviewed. Some profile.

That may be the only thing the report got right. Top to bottom, the story is riddled with factual errors, blatantly stereo-typed prejudice and gross omissions (for instance, trumpeting an officers $2 million jury verdict, while failing to mention said verdict was overturned on appeal).

Here, then, is the commentary in response that I have prepared for NPR. They've not seen fit to get back to me. I'm shocked.

The Politically Incorrect Truth About LAPD's First Female SWAT Officer:

NPR's recent profile of Los Angeles Police Officer Jennifre Grasso, the first female selectee for the renown LAPD SWAT team, left out numerous key facts and advanced patently false misperceptions and liberal stereo-types.

Let's stipulate now that Jennifer Grasso is an outstanding cop. Those who have worked with her say she's far better than most male officers. SWAT officers I know were disappointed when she failed their stringent 2006 selection.

This doesn't change a simple fact: If Grasso is passes SWAT school, it will only be because she's a woman, and Police Chief Bratton wants a woman on SWAT, capable or not.

NPR failed to mention that Grasso recently committed a violation of weapons' safety so egregious that most present SWAT officers would have been removed from the team for the same. She accidentally fired an MP-5 submachine gun, without even having the weapon in a firing position.

Before now, SWAT officers were expected to arrive with the finest weapons handling traits. Just as diamonds can be cut and polished only to standards their chemical traits permit, so too are weapons skills limited. By choosing only officers with the finest innate traits - those with skills that need to be honed, not learned - SWAT has amassed a remarkable record - killing less than 1% of the extremely dangerous suspects they confront and only one hostage ever - and arguably not even her.

In past years, dozens of male and female candidates have been disqualified for even placing a finger on the trigger at the wrong time. Every professional weapons handling standard starts with "never put a finger on the trigger unless you are ready to fire." Grasso went one better, spraying rounds into the dirt in front of her.

She literally could have killed someone, yet is still in school.

Does anyone really believe no SWAT standards have been lowered, as CPT Jeff Greer asserted?

This is no minor matter to current SWAT cops. Would you want to confront an armed suspect knowing the officer behind you had accidentally fired the same machine gun that is now inches from your back? If you're a hostage, is that officer your first choice of rescuer?

NPR also failed to tell you that the selection procedure that picked Grasso used only five of the 18 standards that were previously used to evaluate candidates. Among the eliminated tests, was a simulated hostage rescue that very closely mirrored the 2005 incident in which SWAT is believed to have accidentally killed a little girl - the Suzie Pena case which supposedly led to this change. It is that same test that former officer Nina Acosta barely passed in the early 1990s before suing the City for discrimination. Contrary NPR's report that she wasn't selected because of her gender, officers who testified in the trial say Acosta hesitated for three or four seconds inside that room while fumbling with her weapon. Most police gun battles are over in half that time.

That is why Acosta's $2 million verdict was thrown out by an appeals court, another fact NPR left out.

NPR also was quick to quote LAPD observer Joe Domanick, a journalist who's never carried a gun, much less served as an LAPD officer. According to him, blacks and Latinos were only admitted to SWAT following a consent decree, and the unit is still largely a bastion of whites.

In fact, this is false. Among the very first SWAT officers were several highly regarded officers of a variety of ethnicities. One black sergeant is regarded by old timers as a key to the team's early growth. A large number of the team was Hispanic. Today, African American officers make up a greater percentage of SWAT than the LAPD as a whole - something that was true before Randal Simmons was murdered in Winnetka earlier this year.

But, to Domanick and NPR (who apparrently didn't bother going to look at SWAT), this is a white male bastion.

The fact is, contrary to NPR's assertions, SWAT is a bastion of excellence of all colors, and diverse in its expertise. Its record proves it rarely uses force, and its ranks include some of the world's best-trained - and most successful - hostage negotiators.

How could NPR get so many facts wrong and omit so many important points? I'd venture to say NPR is far more prejudiced against folks in blue, than SWAT cops are anyone of any color. Or any gender.

The loser in all of this is Grasso. Frankly, lots of folks can make mistakes with a weapon. Officers who have done so in the past have retested the selection process and made the team, without doubts. Grasso will not be so fortunate. Regardless of the selection standards used, she will now always be known as the woman who had the standards changed for her, and who got away with something no man ever would.

Sometimes when you shatter a non-existent glass ceiling, you still get cut be falling shards.

And, remember, the standards have not been lowered.

Posted by Robert C.J. Parry at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

LAPD Chief William Bratton came to the Daily News this afternoon, mostly to talk about how different the Mayday march will be from last year's breakdown, in which several members of the media were hurt. But the real interesting thing, to me, was his thoughts about everyone's favorite scapegoat: Special Order 40.

"I'm sorry, it's here to stay."

Last week the parents of murdered high school star Jamiel Shaw Jr. pleaded with the City Council to change the LAPD policy, which simply requires officers not to initiate action with the purpose of checking someone's immigration status. Councilman Dennis Zine reacted with an ordinance requiring officers to check status in certain cases. Bratton today dismissed the calls for revision or repeal (and Zine's ordinance), noting that Special Order 40 isn't going anywhere. He and his top staff said they already work with ICE agents and do everything they can to deport violent criminals and gangsters. Nevertheless, he said he is developing a clarification for Special Order 40 so that the misinformation will stop.

He also speculated that if SheriffJoe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Ariz, who is rounding up illegal immigrants himself, is already probably putting quite the strain on the federal government's deportation resources.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Be sure to read today's L.A Times account of the release of Willie Earl Green from San Quentin -- 24 years after a wrongful murder conviction. There are a few stunning things about this piece. The first is Green's fascination with all the trappings of modern life he's missed out on:

It was a day of firsts for Green. He drank his first cup of Starbucks coffee. He took it with cream and sugar -- two treats forbidden in state prison. His wife told Green that she would teach him to use her newfangled coffee maker and washing machine when they got home....

He asked a reporter to let him hold a cellphone, a contraption he had never touched before. He fingered the keypad a bit and carefully relinquished the phone. "Take it back before I drop it," he said....

An investigator for Green's legal team demonstrated a remote device to unlock the car. Green watched with delight as the investigator showed him how to open the doors and pop the trunk.

"That is something," Green said. "Teach me that someday."

More remarkable still is Green's under lack of bitterness, despite having so much of his life taken away:

"The system that put me in here was the same system that got me out," he said. "It's not perfect, but it's the best system in the world."

And finally, there's this chilling thought: What if Green had been executed? Wrongful imprisonment is terrible enough, but at least it can be corrected. The death penalty is irrevocable. Once applied, mistakes can never be undone.

Something to ponder on this, the commemoration of the day when Christ Himself was wrongly executed ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Neither the fall of Oedipus nor Eliot is about sex. Their downfalls and humiliations are earned by their character (or lack there-of) and most importantly by their moral blindness.

When comparing these two disgraceful and disgraced figures, I remind you that the tragic hero is not necessarily heroic in our modern sense. They are great men only in the sense of the greatness of their power, not their virtue.

This certainly describes Spitzer—a man famous for ferocity, lack of compassion and a zealotry that seems based on exceptional, what the Greeks called, Hubris and we refer to as chutzpah.

Oedipus’ great sin was not so much that he married his mother and thus gave Freud a career and influence beyond the bounds of even death. It was his impetuosity, his single-mindedness. Raised in a royal house, he felt entitled. When upset by not getting the right of way for his chariot, he slew the man who had refused to yield. In this first recorded incident of road rage, he slew his biological father and then married the widow, his mother.

When he learned that his kingdom was being punished by the gods for some great sin, he set out with fierce passion to find the culprit, not knowing that he was looking for himself. With eyes wide open, yet blind to his moral culpability, he sought to find the scoundrel responsible for the city’s suffering. Only the physically blind seer Tiresius could see deeply enough to know that Oedipus was headed for disaster. Throughout the play light and dark are constantly contrasted. Secrets are brought to light after being hidden in darkness. As Oedipus closed in on himself and began to see where he was headed, he cried out in an attempt to mitigate his guilt and responsibility that he was “caught in the web of the gods.” Tiresius said, “No, Oedipus, you weave your own doom.”

At the moment that Oedipus truly sees what he has done, when his moral blindness is cured, he plucks out his physical eyes thus trading one blindness for another.

Spitzer, also born to a high station in life, was relentless in the pursuit of evil. We, and probably he, thought to punish it, but it turns out to perpetrate it. He wanted to punish the bad guys and was willing to do anything to find criminals, and punish them. He bragged about living in a Manichean world of black and white, good and bad, virtue and evil. As zealots do, he pursued evildoers without pity or remorse. He hated lies. He hated cheats. He hated prostitution. That his swift fall followed from the world finding out that he was everything he seemed to hate may seem at first blush to be hypocrisy. I suspect that this is too easy an analysis. I suspect that what he hated derived from what he feared that he was. He chased the bad guys, the cheats, the hookers, the Johns to slay his own demons.

We know the sad narrative by now—the double cliché of the fallen icon weeping in contrition for his sin—the anti-gay crusader caught in a men’s room, the preacher found in a motel, the justice department anti-crime crusader charged with perjury. We know too the second cliché of bringing the wife, teary and humiliated, in front of the cameras. For what? To show solidarity? To indicate that someone still stands with him? Why is she being punished for his sins?

I understand the perp walk—parading some fallen executive from home to car in cuffs. This is meant to embarrass and humiliate. It is a cautionary gesture warning other malefactors to be aware of the costs of being caught. But for the most part the FBI doesn’t cuff the innocent spouse. Oedipus’ wife/mother, when all was revealed got to die off-stage. A good example of compassion.

Oedipus and Eliot have their public falls from grace, power and privilege. What was dark and hidden is brought to light by zealous and ironic acts of self-immolation. Two men with great power and potential destroy themselves with pitiousless moral blindness—and in the end, those who were physically sighted prove to be blind and two physically blind men remain: Tiresius the Seer and David Paterson the new governor of New York.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 8:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Generally I'm not one to sneer at the pages of sex ads in alternative publications like the L.A. Weekly, possibly because they seem somewhat sad. Those ladies, and some men, are just trying to make a buck in a city that sells sex in any way people will buy it. Besides, it seems marginally safer to ply your trade through the want ads than working the mean streets of Sunset or Sepulveda.

But the ads of the Emperor Club VIP that are floating around on the Internet chill me in a way that my libertarian sympathies can't dismiss. It's not such much the Playboy centerfold type spreads of women's bodies with their measurements that bothers me. It's not the seven-diamonds ratings system, though it seems better suited to a movie or hotel. It's the marketing language that advertisers use for any other product for sale on the free market.

The online intro to the club (recently taken down, not surprisingly) boasts top-notch product:

"Our meticulous standards of beauty, intelligence and charm ensure that you always encounter the quality you've come to expect in a woman."

Ugh. The crass commodification of the "escorts" doesn't even try to dress up the prostitution. We got your quality piece of ass right here.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know the whole world is dumping on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer lately, but I think his resignation speech today was pure class. He's owned up to his faults, assumed responsibility, accepted the consequences -- and now tries to pick up the pieces.

Some notable lines:

• "From those to whom much is given, much is expected. I have been given much - the love of my family, the faith and trust of the people of New York, and the chance to lead this state. I am deeply sorry I did not live up to what was expected of me."


• "Over the course of my public life I have insisted, I believe correctly, that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself."


• "I go forward with the belief, as others have said, that as human beings our greatest glory consists not in never falling but in rising every time we fall."

Amen to that. One hates to see our leaders ever embroiled in this kind of scandal, but much to his credit, Spitzer has shown exactly how to respond to one's failings with grace. Godspeed to him and his family.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As the sad news of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's adultery and involvement with prostitution breaks, expect to hear some talk of "hypocrisy." After all, he was an anti-corruption crusader who prosecuted a couple prostitution rings in his days as New York's attorney general. But expect nothing of the sort of hypocrisy-hyperbole you might hear if Spitzer were a Republican, a conservative, or, worse yet, an opponent of "gay marriage."

Whenever anyone who has said a word in support of traditional families gets caught in one of these sex scandals, all hell breaks loose. Think of Newt Gingrich. Or Larry Craig. Or Robert Livingston -- to cite just a few names from a very long list. Among the chattering classes, these conservatives' marital sins are considered to be somehow worse than progressives' like Gavin Newsom's because right-wingers have the nerve to prattle on about "family values" from the campaign stump.

But as a candidate and as a governor, Spitzer has also been know to prattle on about family values -- he just does so in support of "gay marriage." Consider some of the phrases he has used to describe marriage, words which could have come straight from James Dobson or Pope Benedict XVI.

• Spitzer has called the bonds of matrimony a "solemn commitment."
• He has said that "the institution of marriage produces incalculable benefits for society, by fostering stable familial relationships."
• He's called marriage a "crucial social institution."
• He's even said, "Strong, stable families are the cornerstones of our society. The responsibilities inherent in the institution of marriage benefit those individuals and society as a whole."

Both opponents and proponents of "gay marriage" claim that matrimony is important -- the former argue it's so important it cannot be altered; the latter argue it's so important that it must. Either way, both pay lip service to the institution and its role in society.

So how is a married supporter of "gay marriage" any less of a "hypocrite" when caught soliciting $5,000 call girls from the Emperors Club VIP? He, too, has violated the very moral code he claims to uphold, the one he's cited to advance a political agenda as well as a political career. He, too, has fallen far short of his own rhetoric and his own publicly held ideals.

Here we get to the rub: "Hypocrisy" is an overrated vice. The only ones among us who aren't hypocrites are the shameless, those who don't fall short of their own ethical standards because they have none in the first place. (No one will ever call Larry Flynt a hypocrite, but is this really a statement in his favor?) The rest of, struggling to live morally in a fallen world, are all hypocrites and will be until the day we die. We no doubt try to do better, to live better, to be better -- but in the meantime, we'll fall short.

Which is why the great cudgel of "hypocrisy" that progressives like to wield against fallen conservatives is nothing more than that.

Eliot Spitzer may be a hypocrite, but that hardly discredits any of the positions he's taken in the past, on marriage or anything else. Indeed, the fact that he's willing to acknowledge his failings -- rather than to deny they are failings at all -- shows that he's just one more soul struggling for the grace to live up to his ideals.

May he find it. May we all.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 4:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Perhaps it's just me, but I find a curious, though clearly quite coincidental, connection in NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's prostitution scandal (watch the video of his press conference here a few minutes ago which he apologizes for something, but never says what). Spitzer reportedly met with his high-priced prostitute (no crack 'hos, for Eliot!) at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington according to a federal probe. (He had her flown there. She must have been one special hooker! The kind you can't find in Washington.) And Spitzer worked for the former NYC district attorney's office, which in 1984 busted the Mayflower Madam -- Sydney Biddle Barrows.
Ok, it's a thin connection. But fun!

Posted by Mariel Garza at 1:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 2:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first time I set eyes on Los Angeles Police Department Officer Randy Simmons, he was lifting a 200-pound man off the ground. In an enthusiastic bear hug.

Simmons, a large, gregarious rock of a man was warmly embracing a long-time friend, and fellow LAPD SWAT officer, who had graciously invited me to take a peek inside their fraternity, at the annual SWAT Dinner.

That was barely 10 days ago. No one in that room at the Police Academy, no matter how tactically cynical, could anticipate that less than two weeks later, Simmons would be the first man from the Metropolitan Division’s “D Platoon,” as SWAT is officially known, to die in a gun fight.

Simmons, with more than 20 years on the team, was hardly the picture of a SWAT cop the media would have you believe. You certainly would not think him to be one of the Neanderthal brutes that LAPD brass considers them. While he looked every part the former pro-football player he was – a rock-solid athletic physique that, though nearly two-decades my senior, put mine to shame – he was warm, tender even, to those around him.

As he and my host spoke, I looked around the room and noticed 20-feet away a graying man of Asian descent at a table of mostly Hispanic officers. “Wow,” I thought to myself. “I wish I could have brought the LA Times Editorial Board down here. Let them see the brutal, racist, lily-white LAPD that they so often blast. Let them see a black cop hugging a white cop like long lost brothers.”

That Asian cop, Jim Veenstra, now lies in the same hospital where Randy Simmons succumbed, a bullet having felled him in the same fusillade.

Following up on my suggestion of 11 days ago, the San Francisco police are trying to take a look at the tiger-attack victims' cell phones. And wouldn't you know it, attorney-to-the-shameless Mark Geragos won't let them. Go figure.

I stand by my prediction of 12-27: These kids were trying to get on "Jackass," or at least YouTube, and Tatiana upset their plans. The proof, I suspect, is on those cell phones ...

Meanwhile, Geragos, when he's not suing the zoo, is also representing the family of Nataline Sarkisyan, the Northridge girl who died when her insurance company refused to pay for a liver transplant. Says Geragos, "If you're driving a car and you have an accident and you kill someone, you could be charged with murder. Why wouldn't the same happen with insurance companies?"

It's a strong-sounding argument, but seeing that Geragos spends his time trying to help actual killers (e.g. Scott Peterson) try to evade justice, he's the hardly the one to now be calling for the death penalty for an HMO.

Heres a question for Gergaos to ponder:

If you're driving a car and you have an accident and you kill someone, you could be charged with murder. Why shouldn't the same happen to men who kill their wives and unborn children?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It doesn't deter crime. It's expensive. It's needless in today's world. It puts innocent lives at risk. And in the state of New Jersey, it -- capital punishment -- is no longer.

Yesterday, Gov. John Corzine signed a law ending the death penalty in the Garden state, and commuting to life-without-parole the death sentences of eight condemned inmates. This marks the first time in 40 years a state has opted to dispense with capital punishment.

But could it be a trend? And could California be next?

As I wrote in a Daily News column nearly five years ago (re-posted after the jump), the death penalty in California has become an expensive joke. It serves little purpose to maintain it, and doing so comes at a steep cost, both financially and morally.

For decades, the Democratic Party stood valiantly against popular opinion and for its principles in opposing capital punishment, but that ended around the time of Clinton, when the party decided the issue was a loser, and winning mattered more than anything else. Since then, neither party -- and only a handful of politicians in either -- has been willing to talk about the issue honestly.

But maybe that's changing. Polls have shown a softening of public opinion in the issue, and in New Jersey, politicians clearly felt safe enough in their jobs to voe the right way. Time will tell if politicians in other states, including California, show the courage to follow suit.

Continue reading "Capital Punishment, RIP" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To understand how incredibly separated from reality the politically driven Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners is, one look no further than their latest review of an officer-involved shooting.

Distributed yesterday on the LAPD web site, this report, regards the January 22, 2007 shooting of Officer Andy Taylor.

The long-story short of this event is that Officer Taylor was shot four times at point-blank range by a suspect who was handcuffed and already searched. Taylor barely survived, saved literally by his badge, which deflected a round suspect Mathew Powell fired into his chest.

The report is bizzarre on its face, even to those of us fully familiar with the stilted "Officer A, Subject 1" language that is a by-product of certain police officer protection laws. But, for a real trip down the LAPD Rabbit Hole, flip over to page 11 and read this gem of antiseptic, ivory tower analysis (Officer C is Taylor, Suspect 3 is Powell):

Following the removal of Subject 3 from the apartment, Officer C guarded Subject 3 in the hallway. Officer C sat Subject 3 up into a seated position, with Subject 3’s back against the north hallway wall, opposite the doorway to the apartment. Officer C then observed Subject 3 raising his right knee and begin to rise up from the ground by pushing up with his right leg. Officer C placed his hands on Subject 3’s upper torso in an attempt to push him back to a seated position. Simultaneously, Subject 3 rotated his body in a counterclockwise direction, bringing his hands to his right side while holding a handgun. Subject 3 then fired two rounds at Officer C, knocking him rearward. Officer C regained his
footing, crouched down and grabbed Subject 3’s wrists with both hands. Unable to gain control of Subject 3’s handgun, the struggle continued westbound down the hallway. As Subject 3 raised himself off the floor, Officer C tackled him to the ground in a prone position with Officer C landing on top of him. Subject 3 canted his body onto his left side, extended his arms to the right side of his body, attempting to point the handgun at Officer C. Officer C attempted to force Subject 3’s torso onto the floor with his bodyweight while fighting for control of the handgun.

The BOPC found Officer C’s non-lethal use of force to be in policy.

That's right, the BOPC devoted all of that space to finding Taylor acted appropriately in tackling a man who was in the process of shooting him. It's a good thing the BOPC didn't consider the possibility that Taylor spoke to the scum ball in a disrespectful manner after being capped four times. They might still be writing for another month if that were under review.

There's your consent decree at work, Angelenos. A cop gets shot four times and hours of effort go into analyzing if the officer was "in-policy" in tackling him. Glad to know we have that much trust in the LAPD hiring process.

The rest of the report, however, is revealing in other respects.

At the end of the incident narrative sit a series of facts that do not appear in most (if any) other force incident reviews. These include statements that Powell's hands were tested for gunshot residue, his gun was tested for finger prints and hisDNA was also found on the gun. Also included were details about the actions of fire fighters and paramedics ho responded to the scene.

What was this all about? Well, if you read the Times Homicide Blog you will find a lengthy discussion i the comments in which Powell's famly asserts he was wrongly killed for a variety of vacuous reasons. Normally, this would be of no concern to logical folks.

Unfortunately, the BOPC is neither normal, nor logical. (Remember, this is the same body whose newest member declared "diveristy" to be the department's greatest challenge the day a cop was nearly killed - quite possibly because of said body's most controversial policy).

Nope, Commissioner John Mack, who never met a cop he actually liked, took up the cause of the wanna-be cop-killer Mathew Powell. He demanded updates on this particular case outside of the normal reporting cycle.

It's obvious, I suppose. Andy Taylor OBVIOUSLY shot himself four times with a random gun, just to make the killing of a random suspect look good. I mean, nobody actually kills cops. That's just an excuse to cover up murder and oppression of well intended thieves and drug dealers. Isn't that right, Mr. Mack.

Are you paying attention, Mr. Mayor?

Posted by Robert C.J. Parry at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When robbers and thieves get busted, typically they cite financial pressure as their reason for turning to crime. They needed to keep food on the table, or even nurse an expensive addiction. But two young convicts in Ohio have offered a new explanation for their criminal endeavors -- they had to keep up with the soaring price of tuition. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports:

Andrew Butler should be a junior at the University of Toledo, where the theater major would be starring in school plays, maybe one day headed to Hollywood or Broadway.

Christopher Avery should be a sophomore at the University of Cincinnati, an engineering major with a lucrative career ahead.

Instead, the men are going to prison for at least 20 years because they tried to raise tuition money with two armed holdups last summer....

"Why?" Judge Steve Martin asked the men, who had no criminal records. "You're in college, I don't understand."

Both men cited tuition.

Butler said tuition went up so his scholarships and financial aid were not enough.

"I was stressed out," he said. "I needed more money for college."

It almost sounds like a joke -- not least of all because the judge's name is Steve Martin -- but it's real. There you have it: Proof that American colleges today are breeding grounds for criminality! (rim shot)

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Robert Saltzman needs to read his new business card. The Los Angeles BOPC does not the stand for Board of Political Correctness. It is the Board of Police Commissioners, and bears some of the greatest responsibilities in Southern California .

Saltzman is its newest member and his decisions will directly influence life or death situations that impact cops, crooks and citizens alike. Sadly, Mr. Saltzman's first comments on these responsibilities reflect a stunning lack of knowledge about the Los Angeles Police Department: "Diversifying the police force is a significant problem, perhaps the most significant problem facing the force," said the USC Law School Associate Dean, in a story in Friday's DN by Rachel Uranga.

Clearly, Mr. Saltzman has not studied the LAPD. Had he, his comments would reflect facts like these:

• 71% of the officers graduating from the LAPD's last four academy classes have been ethnic minorities. Many of the remaining 29% were caucasian women.
• More than 45% have been Hispanic
• Those classes averaged 17% female

Moreover, had Mr. Saltzman done his homework, he would know that "diversity" of the LAPD did nothing to prevent the problems in the Rampart CRASH squad. The primary perpetrators of the worst LAPD corruption in 50 years were Hispanic and Black. Changing the LAPD's "color" did no favors for Javier Ovando, who was shot by the very diverse Rafael Perez and Nino Durden. And it did nothing to prevent the MacArthur Park fiasco. Out of the three most senior folks directly involved - the two ground commanders and the Assistant Chief who signed off on the May 1 planning - there was uno gringo hombre.

Clearly a lack of diversity did not contribute to those problems.

More bothersome, Mr. Saltzman's comments came just hours after an undercover (and thus unnamed) Hollenbeck Division officer was run over and horribly injured by a fleeing suspect. This incident has already raised tremendous questions among LAPD rank-and-file as to whether the BOPC's new post-Devon Brown shooting policy (which essentially prohibits firing at moving vehicles) nearly got this officer killed.

Unfortunately, the attempted murder of a cop isn't on the radar of the LAPD's newest leader. For what it's worth, I'm told this officer is Hispanic - he's diverse!! - so it's politically correct for Commissioner Saltzman to care.

The officers I know - almost all beat coppers exclusively below the rank of lieutenant - would prefer that Mr. Saltzman devote his attention to addressing a few other issues that impact the day-to-day policing of Los Angeles. A sampling of the greater concerns:

• Officers (of all "diversities") are fleeing the LAPD. Why?
• The Consent Decree is tying cops hands and keeping hard charging cops out of choice assignments. How does that lower crime? How does it solve the above problem?
• Gang members are said to be getting through the LAPD hiring process - academy cadets have been caught throwing gang signs in the hallways. Is that just maybe a bad sign? Or is that the kind of diversity he strives for? After all, crooks are part of society. Perhaps the LAPD reflect them as well.
• I'm told of cadets re-cycled five and six times, who have been in training longer than a lot of their instructors have been at the Recruit Training Center . Is that the kind of diversity you want, Mr. Saltzman? Is that the cop you want coming to your door with a loaded gun?
• The revised Shooting Policy might have resulted in gruesome injuries to one cop already. Perhaps it should be changed before one gets killed? Maybe?
• The Department's ASTRO radios are falling apart and quite nearly useless. They are a threat to the safety of officers and citizens alike (calling 911 is useless if the dispatcher can't raise an officer). "If there's another Northridge Earthquake, the peole of Los Angeles will see just how bad the ASTROs are," one copper told me. Perhaps funding their replacements will save more lives than counting noses?

Yes, dealing with these issues will force a lefty like Mr. Saltzman to blame someone other than the LAPD for all the world's faults. But, it might just make LA a safer place for folks of all colors - even the ones in blue.

Posted by Robert C.J. Parry at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Stephen Yagman is the legal gadfly who has made a living filing countless lawsuits against law enforcement, some valid, some less so. Over the last several months, we have come to learn that he has made an especially good living off this practice, enjoying a lifestyle of Aspen vacations, fancy suits from from London, and very fine dining.

This is all made possible by the fact that, back in 1995, Yagman stopped paying taxes. And in June, he was convicted of money laundering, attempted tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud.

But now Yagman's lawyers are trying to keep him out of prison, claiming, among other things, that he's been asked to teach at UCLA's School of Law. The argument is that the state shouldn't keep Yagman behind bars, but put him on the public payroll -- to shape young legal minds, no less.

So, what subjects would Professor Yagman, convicted tax evader, money launderer, and defrauder, teach? Believe it or not, "law, morality and social justice."

Unbelievable. Maybe if Yagman can't do the job, Duke Cunningham could fill in for him ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Well, neither did I. Her name is Latasha Norman, a 20-year-old Jackson (Miss.) State University student who went missing on Nov. 13 after leaving an afternoon class. This is obviously a crucial time period in the case: where if she's alive, she might be recovered; or if God forbid she's dead, important evidence would be fresh and suspects at hand.

The media is going ape today because of new searches about to begin in the two-year-old disappearance of Natalie Hollaway in Aruba, and sharing the attention is the case of missing Stacy Peterson and her creepy cop husband in Illinois. But what about Latasha? Today was the very first time I even heard of the case, just because the police chief in Mississippi was blunt enough, thank God, to say what we all know to be the case: Latasha's not getting national press because she's black. More:

"'As far as the interest by the national media in the story, I think race probably had an impact,' said Jackson Police Chief Malcolm McMillin, who is white. 'It's a small college in the South. It's the daughter of simple people who maybe are not important outside of their circle, and maybe we don't attach the same importance to them that we do for other people.'

McMillin said the nation's eyes have been on a Chicago case in which a former police officer, Drew Peterson, is suspected in the disappearance of his wife, Stacy. The couple is white.

'We need to show the same kind of concern for this,' McMillin said of Norman's disappearance, adding that heightened exposure could help develop leads in the case."

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Despite his innocent appearance, Drew Peterson is suspected in the disappearance of his forth wife and death of his third wife. Imagine. Still, he may waltz free on the murder charge. That would not however make him a free man. Just as the Feds got Al Capone, not on murder but tax evasion, Police Sgt. Peterson is going down. And, he’s taking his lawyer, Joel Brodsky, with him.

With a legal and media strategy designed for an insanity plea, he and his lawyer were on the Today Show, spinning yarns. Peterson was telling jokes and later riffing with the press gaggle in front of his home. He may not hang for murder but he and his attorney are clearly dealing in bad humor and made up stories. They are—and I don’t want to rush to judgment here but the facts will bear me out—a bunch of no-good scabs and are violating the writers’ strike.

If you become a celebrity, maybe you can get away with murder but breaking a labor strike? No way. Peterson, we will hunt you, your mouthpiece and your writers down! You will not get away with this!

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nope, sorry, it's not Van Nuys, but OC wonderland Mission Viejo, according to the latest crime survey that ranked Detroit the most dangerous city in the U.S. So what can the Motor City learn from Mission Viejo to drop its crime rate? Well, everyone going to bed by 7 p.m. is a start...

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 1:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

What good does it serve society or Lindsay Lohan to spend 84 minutes in county jail? The resources spent processing her entry into the women's detention center in Lynwood were wasted for a sentence that is meaningless.That's what happened Thursday when the 21-year-old starlet showed up for her one-day sentence, was booked, held and then almost immediately released. According to the Associated Press account:

She was searched, fingerprinted and placed in a holding cell in the inmate reception area but got to keep her street clothes, sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said.

She was cooperative," he said.

Lohan was released at 11:54 a.m. Her original daylong sentence was reduced because she met criteria that took into account overcrowding at the lockup and the fact that her crime was nonviolent, Whitmore said.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A good many Americans, including our own attorney general, Michael Mukasey, claim to be utterly baffled by the question: Is simulated execution by drowning -- AKA waterboarding -- torture?

Well, maybe this little bit of history, courtesy of an NPR report on the subject, will bring them some clarity:

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor...

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

So, AG Mukasey, it seems our government has regarded waterboarding as torture in the past. The question now, then, is pretty clear: Do you plan to uphold American law, or continue living in willful denial of it?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First there was Scott Peterson bumping off pregnant wife Laci. Now there's 53-year-old Sgt. Drew Peterson, whose third wife mysteriously drowned in the bathtub in 2004 after leaving the telltale "just in case something happens to me" notes about her bad marriage, and whose 23-year-old (creepy, anyone?) fourth wife Stacy is now missing.

And speaking of Amber Frey's ex-boyfriend, now on Death Row, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled this week that Scott Peterson cannot inherit Laci's $250,000 insurance policy. DUH!! How did this claim even get this high in the legal chain?

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Remember George Russell Weller? He's the old guy who, back in 2003, killed 10 people and injured more than 70 when ploughing his car uncontrollably through the Santa Monica Farmer's Market. It was a hideous accident for which, you would think, Weller and his insurers alone would be liable. But no.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals has ruled that the city of Santa Monica bears some culpability for Weller's catastrophe because it failed to adequately shield shoppers from a recklessly confused 86-year-old behind the wheel of car. That means victims can sue the city, and taxpayers will ultimately end up paying the bill for Weller's crime.

I can understand victims' urge to hold someone accountable, and even to get some just compensation. But it's not reasonable to expect municipal governments to be able to proactively defend us from every hypothetical disaster. Sometimes terrible things just happen, and no one is responsible for them other than those who actually did the deed.

All that will happen as a result of this ruling is Santa Monica taxpayers will pay millions -- millions that won't be available for policing, safe streets, and other real responsibilities of municipal government to make our lives safer. Thus, by "failing" to account for a hypothetical crime, Santa Monica will be exposed to more all too predictable ones.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

You've got to give credit to the 20-year old, female Baskin-Robbins employee in San Fernando, who risked life and limb chasing a thief who tried to bolt the store without paying $5 for his triple-scoop, strawberry ice-cream cone. When she caught up with him, the two scuffled, the ice cream splattered, and eventually the cops were called in. Fortunately, the police were able to break this cold case (sorry), and nab the suspect, who was hiding nearby.

It might have been reckless on the clerk's part to go after a potentially dangerous robber, but on the other hand, there's a social benefit that comes when brave people refuse to submit to criminals. You can bet no one's going to try to dine & ditch at that 31 Flavors again!

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I do not completely object to torture. Sometimes, far more rarely than we in fact torture people, we might have to use extreme measures. I do object to lying about torture, denying that we torture and allowing the torturers to get away with what is a crime. Do I sound like I’m contradicting myself? Probably, but let me try to explain.

Indeed, Chris is right about the relative silence of both parties on the issue of torture. It is truly embarrassing that we torture logic and the dictionary while subjecting prisoners to real torture: pain and both psychological and physical stress. But, “we do not torture and we do not approve of torture and the president has never authorized torture and never will,” Press Secretary Dana Perrino asserts.

Since we get to define torture, our essential claim is that whatever we do cannot be torture, since we do not torture. This is tautological and reprehensible.

This would be a laughing matter, except that it isn’t. It has real world consequences to our image and how the rest of the world treats our soldiers—if not today, tomorrow and for decades to come.

The simple fact is we facilitate what every school child can understand as torture in two ways. One. We outsource torture through “extraordinary rendition.” This means we send prisoners to other nations knowing that they are very likely to be abused, tortured and even killed. We claim to receive assurances that these countries, well-known for using torture, won’t do it anymore. We pretend to believe the Egyptians and Saudis, and we have even rendered prisoners to Syria! Two. We put people in extreme stress positions; we make them believe that they will drown, freeze or simply die.

We wink at the rules and excuse ourselves for our little lies, evasions and distortions by telling our selves that it is just so important, that we have to do it to protect the American People. If we have to do it, we have to own it. We have to judge it. And we have to punish it.

Back in the 60’s there were two major philosophies of civil disobedience. One was to do something against the law—occupy an office, hold a sit in, or have an un-permitted march—and demand amnesty. The other was to do the same things but subject ourselves to the law and be tried for our principles. I favored the second. I still do.

This government breaks the law with hypocrisy and impunity. I believe that it would be better, we would be better off, if we understood that times could arise when we might do things that violated our legal system and even our values. There are possible exigent circumstances such as the famous thought problem of capturing the number one terrorist and knowing a nuclear device was planted somewhere in some city. Accepting that more often than not torture doesn’t work, we might still go beyond the law to save millions of lives.

I suggest that this option, this choice needs to be so out of the ordinary that the costs should be prohibitive. There should be no amnesty for those who torture—even in our name and for a good cause. Without the disincentive of great personal risk and cost, we will find it easier and easier to believe that everything is national security, every prisoner an immanent threat and every piece of potential information, what intelligence services call, “The Crown Jewels.”

Neither we, as a nation, nor our agents can be allowed to get away with torture. The solution is not linguistic but juristic. We cannot fix it by defining the words differently. We can only fix it by holding those who act in our name responsible. If the benefits to our society are great enough and the patriotism of our agents deep enough, they will stand up, own their actions, explain their choices and subject themselves to the weight of our laws.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It long ago became a cliche to refer to street-gang members as "urban terrorists," but the term had some merit, as gangbangers do truly terrorize their neighborhoods. And now, the New York Post reports, gangstas could become the next wave of jihadis:

Seven men intended to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and bomb FBI buildings to ignite a guerrilla war that would overthrow the U.S. government and pave the way for an Islamic regime, federal prosecutors said yesterday in opening statements.

FBI audio and video recordings show that the so-called "Liberty City Seven" hoped to use street gangs as soldiers who would stage attacks, ranging from large-scale bombings of major buildings to poisoning salt shakers in restaurants, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Gregorie said.

On one of the 15,000 FBI recordings, Narseal Batiste is overheard saying he would make sure no one survived destruction of the 110-story Sears Tower because his soldiers would be ready to shoot down anyone who escaped.

This is obviously a far-fetched plot, but the idea of gangbangers going al-Qaida has precedent. We know that radical Islamic groups like to recruit in prisons, where gangbangers spend an inordinate amount of time. And convicted would-be terrorist Jose Padilla was a member of a Chicago street gang who did time behind bars before he took up jihad.

The term "urban terrorist" could prove truer than we thought. And that's a bad omen for Los Angeles -- gang capital of America and prime-time terror target.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Talk about timing: Just as Jonathan and I were discussing the possibility of legalizing marijuana (drawing criticism from readers Dante and Robert), Mariel decided to up the ante in Sunday's Viewpoint. Mariel wouldn't just stop at pot, but advocates full-bore legalization of everything, from hash to heroin. And she makes a strong case that ending the War on Drugs is the only way to win the War on Gangs:

What (Mickey) Cohen knew is that the heart of gangsterism is capitalism. If there's a demand, there's money to be made. And if that money is to be made in the outlaw trade, then outlaws are going to make it. No amount of crackdowns or well-meaning political programs warning of the danger of gangster life is going to stop that essential equation. In fact, when Prohibition dried up, gangsters had to scramble to find new ways of making money.

Luckily for them, there were drugs.

Los Angeles' gangs of today are really no different from the crews of Cohen and Capone. And unless the supply simply dries up, which is unlikely, there's really only one way to stop these moneymaking machines, particularly those profiting from the poor, politically disenfranchised 'hood, where there aren't a lot of legit opportunities for making substantial cash: Take away the demand for the product.

Read the whole thing here. Then comment about it here.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Chris is right that medical marijuana is a Trojan horse to get pot legalized. And Chris is also right that marijuana should be legalized. Liberals and libertarians can meet on the freedom to do to your own body what you wish. As in prohibition, it is the illegality that drives the further crime and makes virtually every young person both a law-breaker and dis-respecter of law. If pot is illegal only criminals will have pot. So why make normal people criminals?

I have to admit that I have tried pot. I haven’t had it in 27 years and before that rather singular occasion, I had not had it in the previous 10 years. It is clearly not my drug of choice. (That would be Chateaux Haut Brion 1966, if you were thinking of a gift)

The Trojan Horse technique, as cynical as it may be, should not counter the good arguments for de-criminalizing pot. On the contrary, the strange and non-objective criteria for getting a medical marijuana prescription, argue for eliminating the unconstitutionally vague conditions for an Rx.

Yes, some cases are easy (if you believe in the efficacy of marijuana to combat the effects of chemo and stimulate the appetite. I believe that the munchies are a scientific fact). Chemo patients should be allowed. Also glaucoma sufferers. However when we get into the real but unverifiable chronic pain of fibromyalgia, back or other soft-tissue injuries, we have problems. So let’s eliminate the problems by eliminating the vague criteria and elaborate rationales.

Let’s take the criminals and sleaze out of the equation and let’s add tax revenue. We could probably balance California’s budget by legalizing pot. It is cited as our largest cash crop. And being cash, it is not taxed. We spend fortunes in policing pot, prosecuting pot-heads and dealers and then warehousing them in prisons where they become hardened criminals—at great cost, both social and monetary, to all of us.

Let’s end the hypocrisy on all sides of this issue. As I write this, I am sitting in beautiful Encinitas California, in a house overlooking the sea. Between my window and the sea, I can see a sign on a store on PCH. It reads: Hydroponic Products. Gee, why do we suppose they’re in business? Seems to be an open secret, not even, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” We live in willful denial of reality—and it is expensive.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

For the record, I have always been a supporter of legalizing medicinal marijuana, and I've got the columns to prove it. For that matter, I still support legalizing medicinal marijuana today. But honesty compels me to admit that, on a key point, the opponents were right.

Back in the early days of this debate, critics said that legalizing medical marijuana was just a back-door attempt at legalizing pot wholesale. I rejected this argument out of hand, on the logic that there's a big difference between helping the sick feel better and helping high-school stoners dope up, There's no reason, I believed, to conclude that the former would in any way lead to the latter.

I was wrong.

One need only look at the proliferation of ostensibly "medical" pot shops in L.A. to realize that what we have here is the rampant distribution of a recreational drug under a bogus medical pretext. We would have to have a veritable epidemic of cancer, glaucoma and various other ailments to possibly justify what's going on here as a medical issue.

Then there are stories like this one, which appears in today's San Jose Mercury News:

After a two-year investigation, federal agents busted an Oakland-based marijuana candy maker this week, seizing hundreds of marijuana-laced products and nearly 460 marijuana plants....

The searches of five locations turned up ... hundreds of marijuana-laced products, including chocolate candy bars in multiple flavors, cookies, ice cream, peanut butter, jelly, barbecue sauce, chocolate syrup, flavored energy drinks, granola bars, moon pies, brownies, chocolate-covered pretzels and "Rice Krispy" treats....

Tainted Inc. ... supplied cannabis clubs in the Bay Area; Seattle; Vancouver, British Columbia; and Amsterdam, Netherlands, as well as being connected to multiple cannabis clubs operating in the Los Angeles area, authorities say.

What the Merc candidly calls "cannabis clubs," we here is SoCal euphemistically call "medical marijuana dispensaries." Sure, that's why they're dressing the "medicine" up as candy bars. (Ironically, one of the best arguments for medical marijuana is that nauseous chemotherapy patients need to smoke pot to settle their stomachs -- and can't simply take THC pills -- because they are unable to keep down what they swallow. Somehow this problem doesn't seem to be affecting all those mr.Greenbud eaters.)

Now, I don't object to the idea of outright marijuana legalization. Proponents make a good case when they say the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits. But if pot is going to be legalized, then it should be done honestly, and not by exploitively using cancer patients as a Trojan Horse.

As for medicinal marijuana, it seems that the experiment of states' trying this on their own has failed. Maybe the answer is to get Washington to take the lead (I can dream), and let the stuff be sold, with a prescription, as a medicine and only in licensed pharmacies.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I must admit that I find myself strangely fascinated with Christie Prody, O.J. Simpson's girlfriend of the last 10 years. The AP has a profile on her today, telling the story of how this small-town Minnesota girl moved to L.A. at age 20, and found herself enchanted by the alleged double-murderer during his Trial of the Century. So she started hanging out around his house, and although we don't know exactly what happened next, we do know they've been together for a decade now. She's 32; he's 60.

But it hasn't been all roses. There have been domestic-violence calls on both sides. And, of course, O.J. now finds himself in the middle of his 28 million-count indictment on armed robbery/kidnapping/fishing without a license, etc. Still, through thick and thin, Christie -- an attractive young woman who surely could find herself a more, um, stable partner -- sticks by her man. Why?

I think this is why I find Prody, who's close to my own age, so fascinating -- because she is willfully doing something that, to the earth's other 6 billion inhabitants, seems so plainly insane, possibly suicidal. I'd love to know how she rationalizes her choice to cast her lot with the likes of O.J. I imagine a conversation with her going something like this:

Me: Why would you date a double-murderer? Aren't you concerned that he might one day do to you what he did to Nicole?

Prody: He was acquitted! He's innocent!

Me: Fine, even if we give him a pass on the murders, don't you remember the 911 tape? The guy's a wife-batterer, is that really someone you want to spend your life with?

Prody: He's a changed man.

Me: OK, people can change their ways, I can accept that. But, just two years ago, you accused O.J. of -- let me quote from the AP here -- "coming uninvited into (your) home, erasing messages on (your) answering machine, taking pages out of an address book and also taking a letter." Didn't that incident -- or any of the other spats requiring police intervention -- make you think that maybe he hadn't changed so much after all?

Prody: What can I say? Love is strange.

Me: Indeed.

The AP notes that in her high-school yearbook, Prody wrote that she plans to "get my Ph.D. in psychiatry." I suspect it would take a Ph.D. in psychiatry to figure her out.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a decision that should surprise no one, the judge in the Phil Spector case has declared a mistrial, with the jury divided 10-2. We don't know yet how that split breaks down, but I'm guessing the 10 wanted to convict. After all, last time around the jury was split 7-5, and since then the jury instructions were modified so as to increase the likelihood of conviction. It seems highly unlikely that jurors who thought "guilty" then would have switched to "not guilty" in the meantime. More likely, the new instructions helped to peal away a few holdouts, but not the remaining two.

And that's one more than it takes to keep a killer out of prison.

We'll see if the prosecutor has the stomach to fight this again, but I suspect that, sooner or later, Phil will be joining Robert Blake and O.J. out on the links.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Warren Jeffs, self-annointed prophet and grand pooh-bah of polygamist sect the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was found guilty today on two counts of rape as an accomplice for forcing a 14-year-old girl to wed and have sex with her 19-year-old cousin.

Predictably, Jeffs claimed he was being persecuted because of his religion. Well, there are a lot of religions with odd beliefs or customs around the world. But as politically correct and tolerant as we are in our views of religion, it's important to know the difference between a religion and a destructive cult. One easy definition by former Moonie Steve Hassan, who now runs the Freedom of Mind Center to help people get out of cults:

"A destructive cult is a pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control. It uses deception in recruiting new members (e.g. people are NOT told up front what the group is, what the group actually believes and what will be expected of them if they become members). It also uses mind control techniques to keep people dependent and obedient. ... Benign cult groups are any group of people who have a set of beliefs and rituals that are non-mainstream. As long as people are freely able to choose to join with full disclosure of the group's doctrine and practices and can choose to disaffiliate without fear or harassment, then it doesn't fall under the behavioral/ psychological destructive cult category."

Simply put, when you hurt other people you cease to be entitled to use a defense of "religious persecution" when called to answer for your crimes. The turning point in this case was the brave young woman who spoke up about her abuse. Hopefully this case will put on notice those cult figures who continue to deceive, buy influence, force or coerce their members into marrying, etc. And hopefully everyone will see that destructive cults didn't die with the 1970s.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ever since California reinstated the death penalty in 1974, it's had a hard time executing its condemned killers. Since 1976, only 13 of the 600+ defendants sentenced to death have actually made their way to the death chamber.

But that doesn't mean the state isn't finding other ways to kill its inmates. According to a report from the court-appointed receiver who's in charge of California's prison health-care system, between 18 and 66 inmates have experienced "preventable deaths" in the state's prison system in 2006 alone.

Think about that: In one year, California accidentally killed more prisoners than it's deliberately killed over the last three decades. That's a staggering indictment not only of the prison health system, but also over the claim that capital punishment has a "deterrent effect."

Clearly we should sentence every criminal in the state to death -- it might be the only way for them to live.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)