KTLA News: "Los Angeles Police Commission discusses report on police shooting of Eula Love" (1979)

right from the outset of this case I have indicated that I certainly did not believe that it was a model shooting it was not a shooting that we could not learn from as a matter of fact it was a shooting that we had much to learn from it was a shooting that resulted in a serious tragedy and caused great divisiveness in this community that alone was enough for us to take it as we have and examine it intensively completely and to learn and to incorporate into the training and the tactics of this department measures which I think will go a long way in preventing this kind of tragedy from occurring uh in the future after the firing ceased each officer ejected the spent casings and reloaded his gun OK Calahan then returned to the police car and at 4214 5 p.m. placed an officer needs help call and a request for a rescue Mrs love was pronounced dead although there are no records of the officer's time of arrival at the scene there are records that show that the officers were at or near Avalon and the average code two urgent but without red light or siren driving time to the love residence is 2 minutes and 11 seconds allowing approximate the time of death may be estimated ated at 421 allowing 45 seconds after the shooting for the officers to reload and place the call for the ambulance thus the max time estimates the following timeline can be established 4:15 p.m. dispatcher puts out call 4:15 52 p.m. call acknowledged by Hopson and OK time of death elapse time arrival to time of death 2 minutes 27 second the majority report of the shooting review board relied upon the following in read facts which are discussed more fully later in this report should be noted with respect to the conclusions contained in the majority report of the shoot there are no substantial objective facts to support the conclusion that the officer's intent at the time they left the car was to arrest Miss love for an assault with a deadly weapon second the 7-minute time period described by the majority was based on erroneously reported facts third there are no facts which support a reasonable basis for the officer's fear for the safety of the children nor is there any substantial evidence that the officers Advanced while Mrs love retreated because of fear for the children's safety finally as discussed above rapid fire discharge of 12 shots as discussed below rapid fire discharge of 12 shots was improper in the circumstances and in conflict with departmental policy one additional Factor was raised by The Minority Report of the shooting review board this factor involved some uncertainty as to the position of Mrs love when the shots were fired contrary to the opinion of Dr Jennifer rice the pathologist who conducted the autopsy of Mrs love under the offices of the County carer's office the report of Dr Richard Meyers a highly respected independent forensic pathologist consulted by the department concludes that at least one of the gunshot wounds was inflicted when Mrs love was on the ground although stating that it is not possible to determine let me read the note to the last sentence the shot in question was labeled in the coroners report as gunshot wound number six the bullet recovered near the exit wound was completely flattened on one side indicating contact with a hard surface at the exit Point although no no concrete markings were discovered on the bullet the only surface at the scene which could have caused this result was the sidewalk Where Mrs love fell during the shooting commission analysis A justifications for shooting and majority report of the shooting review board number one in support of the actions of the officers was their intent to arrest Mrs love for assault with a deadly weapon however there is no substantial evidence in the record to support this in e Los Angeles police department policies and standards the question of whether these officers should now be ordered by the chief of police to stand trial before a board of rights which has the sole Authority under our city Charter to impose significant punishment is a separate matter which has troubled the commission commission greatly prior to the commission's study of the love shooting the department conducted an investigation under the then existing rules and procedures a department shooting review board reviewed the matter and the majority again under the existing rules and procedures found no violation of department policies finally the chief of police who under the charter has the legal responsibility for discipline considered the matter thoroughly and decided that no discipline should be imposed under the then existing rules and procedures the chief's decision constituted a final determination regarding the issue of discipline his final decision was communicated to the individual officers and to the public the officers were entitled under the then existing procedures to rely on the chief's final decision and to conclude that since their case had been finally adjudicated by by the chief of police they could not again be placed in Jeopardy based on our examination and review of The Love shooting we are in disagreement with the decision reached by the majority of the shooting review board certain of the facts which affect our conclusion were not before the chief of police when he adjudicated the disciplinary issue however while the commission might well have reached a contrary conclusion to that reached by the chief even under the facts presented to him we believe believe that any attempt to impose discipline at this time would violate the rights to due process of law to which the two officers like all other persons are entitled footnote in addition application of the Equitable principles of conducted at the request of the commission that would lead me to change my conclusion to be serious errors in the in the report in terms of conclusions I do find and and without belaboring them all let me just point to to some first of all um commission indic those clearly that that Sheila 15-year-old came within 2 feet of Ula love now you must remember the officers did not know what you whether what you y love was capable capable of doing we just had an example at at the harbor of someone who had a knife and who assaulted a harbor officer and immediately they did not know officer Hobson told Sheila to get out of the way which showed his concern for her welfare so I don't think that it was an afterthought be concerned about her welfare the thing I think bothers me most about the conclusions and you'll find it is you get the report on page 24 is the conclusion that I quote if at the time the officers were justified in using deadly force in self-defense and it goes on to say and the facts before the commission do not enable us to make a final determin determination as to that question I think the District Attorney's report I think the police department's report gives the commission ample opportunity to make that decision I think there's clear that there that the officers reacted in self-defense the knife was thrown at them even though there was rapid fire the knife the Act was completed and the knife went 68 ft and there is nothing to refute that absolutely nothing a knife traveling that distance has has the force to cause serious bodily injuries to the officers they reacted in self-defense and I think the the this conclusion is erroneous but it goes on to say it was in substantial part because they had placed themselves prematurely that they had placed themselves prematurely escalated the confrontation and placed themselves in a situation where the use of deadly force became necessary I can see the situation developing where in a Monday Morning Quarterback situation we say that the officers Place themselves in that situation unnecessarily because of their their their poor tactics does that mean facing a self-defense situation that they cannot defend themselves and I think that's what this conclusion calls for that they will be criticized for defending themselves and I think that's harmful extremely harmful to the officers of this this department in this did on this occasion she assaulted a The Gas Company employee earlier and she attempted to assault the police officers on this occasion and nothing has been said about her responsibility in this whole Affair and I think that's unfortunate the last thing I I I should have said that was the last thing I I will end with that um I think I will carry them out in a lawful and effective manner he is clearly a sincere committed person who attempts to perform those functions properly and does so even when he and the commission have disagreements as we do from time to time uh he has said to us that reasonable men can differ on some of these issues including some of the issues we have been discussing today but as I say the most important thing is what the chief said at the outset that he accepts the commission's findings as the final action of the department and as the policy and interpretation of our policy which the department will imp