Quantcast
Connect with us

Policeman looks back on LA riots with shame

Published

on

Lieutenant Andrew Neiman remembers the shame he felt when Los Angeles descended into chaos 20 years ago, after a white jury absolved police of a brutal video-taped beating of a black man, Rodney King.

For more than six hours, as looting, arson and violence engulfed the city’s predominantly black South Central district, police did nothing, kept off the street by their paralyzed leadership.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I loved being an officer, I always wanted to be a police officer,” Neiman said. “But when that happened, afterward, I didn’t want to be a police officer anymore. I was ashamed. Because of how we let the city down. We let the people down.”

From the beginning, the riots were all about the Los Angeles Police Department, and its volatile relationship with the city’s black community, which came to a head with the beating of Rodney King.

A bystander watching from his apartment window video-taped King as he lay on the ground in the street below, surrounded by baton-wielding LAPD officers.

As the tape rolled, the police clubbed King 56 times about the head, knees and arms, knocking him down repeatedly as he struggled to get on his feet.

Four officers were charged with assault and excessive use of force, but on April 29, 1992 all were acquitted of the assault charges. Three were cleared of the excessive force charge, and the jury deadlocked in the case of the fourth officer.

ADVERTISEMENT

The verdicts set off a torrent of rage in the black community.

“It was sort of scary,” said Neiman, recalling a harrowing ride on a police bus as it made its way through a city ablaze to the department’s command post.

“Things were hitting the bus, people were throwing things at the bus, we didn’t know if they were shooting at the bus, we could see the glow of flames from buildings being on fire,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It was like (going) through a war zone.”

At the command post, Neiman found paralysis had set in among the department’s leaders.

ADVERTISEMENT

Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates was out of the city, and his assistants were afraid to take decisions on their own.

Hundreds of police officers were massed at the command post awaiting orders, but as the city burned no instructions were forthcoming.

“I assume they were afraid, but for some reason they would not allow the officers to go out into the street and stop the looting, the violence and the buildings on fire.

ADVERTISEMENT

“In my opinion, I think they were afraid that we were going to make it worse,” he said.

For the first six to eight hours on the first day of the riots, there were few police on the streets, he said.

“We had over a thousand officers in this command post and they wouldn’t let them leave. Finally, officers were so upset with that, that they started to sneak out the back gate to go out and try to stop some of the violence.

“And finally chief Gates arrived and screamed to this assistant officers for not doing their job and then we started to go out and arrest people and stop them from breaking in to the banks and burning down the stores.”

ADVERTISEMENT

It took “almost three to four days to stop all of that,” Neiman said.

The brunt of the looting and arson was borne by Korean store owners, who armed themselves and set up their own patrols to protect their property.

In all 53 people were killed, thousands were injured, and the damage is estimated to have exceeded $1 billion.

“For me as a police officer, I was very embarrassed,” said Neiman, who was 30 years old at the time and had six-and-a-half years on the force. “I was ashamed that we were not helping to stop it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Reflecting on the experience, Neiman said the riots were also humbling for a force with a reputation for arrogance.

“When I first came on and before I came on, I think the attitude of the police department was that ‘we own the city. It’s our city and people have to do what we say.'”

“And after the riots we learned it’s not our city. We work for the people and it’s their city,” he said.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Inspector general found ‘no evidence of political bias’ in Trump-Russia probe: report

Published

on

Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the origins of the probe into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia has found that there was no evidence of political bias on the part of law enforcement officials who began the investigation.

The Associated Press reports that the report "is expected to conclude there was an adequate basis for opening one of the most politically sensitive investigations in FBI history and one that Trump has denounced as a witch hunt."

Despite not finding that the probe was tainted by political bias, the report nonetheless identified several procedural mistakes made by investigators, the AP claims. Included among the problems with the probe identified the report will be "an FBI lawyer suspected of altering a document related to the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide" Carter Page.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

DOJ argues Congress can’t stop Trump Org from taking foreign payments — despite Constitution’s emoluments clause

Published

on

The so-called emoluments clause has been the center of a case that many legal scholars have been making that President Donald Trump is regularly violating the Constitution by continuing to accept payments from foreign governments via his businesses.

The Washington Post reports that an attorney from the Trump Department of Justice argued on Monday that the emoluments clause doesn't actually prevent Trump from accepting payments from foreign governments, even though the clause specifically states that "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Chris Wallace shreds Ken Starr: Trump’s scandal ‘a much bigger issue than whether Bill Clinton lied about sex’

Published

on

Fox News host Chris Wallace argued that the deeds President Donald Trump is accused of are more serious to the country than President Bill Clinton's actions, who was impeached for lying about sex.

During a break in impeachment hearings on Monday, Wallace called out Ken Starr's "characterization of this process and what we heard today... he said that the presentation against the president is narrow, prosecutors look through the world through dirty windows, it's slanted."

"And you know, it just seems to me -- and Ken, I see you there on the screen so I'll be talking directly to you -- when you compare this to the Clinton impeachment, which was basically about whether the president had lied under oath about sex," Wallace continued. "I'm not talking about whether this story is true or not."

Continue Reading