Tuesday's Column
Perhaps the most difficult story to write and report as a journalist is the officer-involved shooting.
Here are three indisputable facts:
1. Cops carry guns.
2. Sometimes cops use their guns.
3. When cops use their guns, it's news.
I'm writing about this because it seems like there's been a spike in the number of officer involved shootings over the past couple of weeks.
For example:
In Inglewood a man was shot and killed by an officer who had mistakenly believed he was fleeing the scene of a shooting.
California Highway Patrol officers shot and killed a man in Westlake at the end of a pursuit when the man pulled a handgun.
Out in San Jacinto in Riverside County, two people were killed by sheriff's deputies who had been fired upon at the Soboba Indian Reservation.
In Long Beach a 46-year-old man, described as "mentally disabled," was shot and killed by officers this past weekend. The shooting stemmed from a fight where the man attempted to take an officer's baton, officials said.
On Friday, seven El Monte cops fired as many as 20 shots at a suspect who tried to run down officers. The man was slightly injured, officials said.
Sometime between Sunday night and Monday morning, San Bernardino police shot and wounded a woman who attempted to attack them with weight-lifting equipment.
Also on Monday, San Bernardino police shot at a pair of guys trying to steal copper wire from the rooftop of the Riverside Press-Enterprise's San Bernardino bureau.
Then there's the case of Glenn Patrick Rose, a 25-year-old Covina man, shot to death last week by sheriff's deputies and CHP officers in an alley off First Avenue in Covina.
Driving a stolen vehicle, Rose and passenger Sarah Morales, 24, had been pursued into Covina from Walnut. The pair was inside a stolen pickup when it rammed a car being used for cover by deputies and CHP officers.
Fearing for their lives, officers Tasered Morales and Rose before firing 15 shots at the pair. Rose was killed at the scene and left lying face up and uncovered for several hours while District Attorney's Office and homicide investigators combed the scene.
It was later determined that Rose died as the result of a single gunshot wound to the abdomen, coroner's officials said Monday.
A subsequent investigation of Rose revealed he had a criminal record and convictions for fleeing police in 2001 and 2002.
So where does the reporter go with this?
Relying too heavily on the criminal record to paint a picture of Rose gives the impression that the reporter maintains a bias in favor of the police. On the other hand, giving carte blanche to attorneys and family members seeking compensation can lead to the reporter being perceived as a bleeding-heart liberal.
As with all things, the truth is out there. It will take time to learn.
Meanwhile, the reporters on these stories will have to learn to walk a tightrope between competing concerns and wildly differing interpretations of their words.

Comments
Frank,
Good job breaking down the complications of covering officer involved shooting stories. People should keep in mind that as in all other cases involving the criminal justice system, the person who commits the "homicide" (as in these cases - the police officers), the person(s) who commit the homicide are "innocent until proven guilty". In the case of an officer involved shooting, the officer shooting is considered the victim of the attack by the suspect. The officer is attempting to save his/her own life and uses force to do so (835(a) PC). So there is a need to determine if the officer committed a "justifiable homicide" (196 PC). If we follow the "innocent until proven guilty" rule, then the person being shot is the "suspect", and the person doing the "shooting", is the victim. It can't be one way for the public and an entirely different way for the persons protecting the public - or themselves.
Thanks for your unbiased observations about the difficulties of the story, from all perspectives.
Posted by: XYZ | May 20, 2008 12:18 PM
I use to feel like the person who commented above until I went to the academy. In the academy there was too many inconsistencies in the training procedures, politics and corruption. There were two people who graduated that never even qualified or passed the PFQ's. One recruit cheated and another one never studied but had the tests from a previous class. When this was reported to the staff it was ignored. To say the least the departments bring this upon themselves!!!!!
Posted by: gigi | May 20, 2008 3:25 PM
Frank,
Gigi's comments sound like a story lead if i've ever heard one. But I won't hold my breath waiting on the Tribune's coverage of scandal, unethical and criminal behavior at Law Enforcement agencies. We know the SGV wouldn't bite the hand that feeds the Paper its stories (just how many of your local stories are crime related btw?--50 %??
Posted by: us | May 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Joe Friday here.
Joe Friday knows law enforcement because I'm Joe Friday. I don't believe recruits that cheat their way through an academy usually make it as law enforcement officers.
One such person made it through Joe Friday's academy class. He was dismissed before his training was completed. If the evidence is strong enough recruits are dismissed from an academy class. Class cadre have to be careful in that area or risk legal action from ambulance chasers.
Joe Friday with the facts.
Posted by: Joe Friday | May 21, 2008 5:08 PM