L.A. Times Acknowledges Error in Number of Punches . . . Sort Of
As promised, I wrote the Readers’ Representative about the L.A. Times‘s mistake in reporting that an LAPD officer had punched a man “at least six times,” when the true number was five. She has acknowledged my e-mail and says she is checking with the reporters. No correction yet, but it appears that they may not be as confident with their numbers as they originally seemed . . .
In a story about a new videotape, which allegedly shows a Venice LAPD officer punitively pepper-spraying a handcuffed suspect, there is this . . . revised description of the punching video:
The Venice videotape comes five days after another video showing [an] LAPD officer trying to restrain a suspect in Hollywood made its way to the internet site YouTube.
The 18-second tape shows an officer punching William Cardenas at least five times as he and his partner try to restrain and handcuff the man, a suspected gang member.
Five times, eh?
“At least six” has become “at least five.” Can a correction be far off?
I think not.
I suspect that we will soon see a quiet correction in a small box on Page A2, which will state — ever so gently — that a previous story (two, in fact) had reported that an LAPD officer had punched a suspect at least six times, when a review of the tape shows that the true number was more like five.
My latest e-mail to the Readers’ Rep says, in part:
If you are running a correction, as now appears likely, I have a suggestion. Given that the focal point of the earlier story was the exact number of punches, and given that the story insinuated that the officers were lying because they got the number wrong, I think that the paper should issue a more prominent correction than usual. While the true number is still more than what the officers’ report said, it’s closer to what the officers claimed than what the Times reported.
I’d add that if Times reporters can get the number of punches wrong after watching a video in the comfort of their offices, it might not be that ludicrous for officers to misremember the exact number of punches after a stressful struggle with a felony suspect who allegedly took several swings at them and actively resisted being taken into custody.
My idea that the paper issue a prominent correction . . . it’s a nice thought, isn’t it? Of course, we all know that, at best, we’ll be getting the small-box-on-Page-A2 correction.
But a guy can dream.
P.S. The new video described in the story (a video of an allegedly punitive pepper-spraying) sounds to me like it depicts misconduct — if the video turns out to show what the story describes. I don’t understand why The Times can’t simply post the video, if they have it. But — assuming that the story accurately describes the video — there’s no excuse for pepper-spraying a handcuffed suspect who is already sitting inside a car. And if you’re doing it because the suspect spit on you, it’s a punitive and excessive use of force.
UPDATE: I should note that the latest story was written by Patrick McGreevy, one of the authors of the previous, erroneous story. Also, this should go without saying, but: printing a different number in a subsequent story, without acknowledging the earlier error, is not a correction — and is not sufficient.
Patterico:
(Too many comments in the other thread!)
Interesting, when I watched the video (once), my answers to the two questions were:
(By “typical,” I mean the brawls I saw at an Irish bar in Santa Cruz called the Poet and Patriot, and the ones I saw in Pensacola bars when I was in the Navy, which are my only two yardsticks for comparison).
I particularly noticed that the officer’s punches were “rabbit punches,” because I thought to myself that if he had just thrown one punch with some leaf-lard behind it, it would only have taken the one.
The suspect looks flabby and out of shape. Bet he didn’t run very far before being brought down.
The other officer keeps grabbing the punching officer’s arm and stopping him. I couldn’t tell which was the senior officer, so I don’t know if that’s significant.
[Actually, it’s not, because he’s not doing that. Watch it again, closely. — P]
But judging from the non-reaction by the suspect to the punches (no stunned expression, no blood, no screaming in pain, and no compliance), my reaction was just to shrug: that’s why we often call security personnel “muscle.”
I’ve worked private security; I’ve never had to punch anyone, but I’ve had to put people in come-alongs. That’s why you get paid the big buck (hah!)
Dafydd (6e94cd) — 11/14/2006 @ 1:32 amFive times? Six times? Either way it was not enough.
Paul Albers (af0607) — 11/14/2006 @ 3:12 amEvery time I see a video of a policeman shouting to an escaping suspect, “Stop! On the ground!”
I have to cringe because I know and the runner knows that the officer will not shoot and he keeps
running.
Too bad. We have handcuffed some of the best.
Why do they still serve?
“While the true number is still more than what the officers report said, its closer to what the officers claimed than what the Times reported.”
Patterico math: 5 is closer to 2 than it is to 6.
[No. 5 is closer to 2 than 6 is. — P]
Patterico logic: The newspaper made a mistake, therefore the policeman didn’t lie.
[No. The newspaper made a mistake, so *maybe* the police did too — since they had just been through a stressful use of force, and the newspaper folks hadn’t. This isn’t hard, croche. — P]
m.croche (85f703) — 11/14/2006 @ 3:50 am“The other officer keeps grabbing the punching officer’s arm and stopping him”
-Dafydd
No, P’s right. The cop on the left has one of Cardenas’ arms cuffed, and is using the cuff to keep Cardenas’ arm restrained (to prevent it from protecting his face, maybe?).
Kind of incriminating in its own way.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/14/2006 @ 7:31 am“…(a video of an allegedly punitive pepper-spraying) sounds to me like it depicts misconduct…”
-Patterico
Good stuff. I agree that IF the guy was pepper-sprayed THEN punched, there was definite misconduct.
[Uh, we’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about a different video, where an officer allegedly pepper-sprayed a handcuffed suspect in a squad car. — P]
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/14/2006 @ 7:33 amJesus I hate this stuff. As far as I’m concerned, if the suspect in the other video spat on the officers, they should have pepper-sprayed him and then beaten the crap out of him. One of the reasons the system is so screwed up is that we’ve suppressed the type of street justice that used to keep thugs in line. Why do you think so many lowlifes these days think nothing of killing cops?
CraigC (9cd021) — 11/14/2006 @ 8:02 amAside from the fact that they know that they won’t die in the gas chamber, if for no other reason than that their lawyers will drag out the appeals process so long that they have a better chance of dying of natural causes in prison.
CraigC (9cd021) — 11/14/2006 @ 8:05 amOops. Sorry. When I saw Dafydd refer to the other thread, I thought this was an extension of some sort.
Still, the point is the same.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/14/2006 @ 8:11 amP, while you are right that the video contains 5 punches, not 6, I really don’t see the need for a big correction. Besides, any accurate correction should really just be a re-print of the story, with the number 6 replaced with five. Everything else holds true (and the story focuses on the wrong stuff).
A basic correction would read “A previous story stating that an officer said he hit a suspect two times, when he really hit the suspect six times, should have read ‘an officer said he hit a suspect two times when he really hit the suspect five times.”
That’s not exactly heartwarming or vindicating. It’s still a story focusing on one difference between a report and a video — that’s not the whole story. I watched the video, and I can’t judge the officers because it’s only 19 seconds of an extended altercation. Depending on what happened before, I might find the conduct reasonable or unreasonable.
I agree that the total number of punches is a red herring. In total, there were two sets of rabbit punches, so I can see how the officer could remember two punches. That’s another reason I don’t think the correction makes a difference; it just raises the discrepancy between the report and reality again.
The real question is whether those punches to the face were reasonable. I can certainly see them being unreasonable. If you assume that the video shows us everything, they appear unreasonable. But if the suspect had just been scrabbling for the officer’s gun, he needed to be distracted from that, and the officer whose gun he would have been reaching for would have had to shift his weight (and risk letting the guy up) to punch anything other than the face.
[Don’t you find it ironic that, in a story that faults officers for getting the number of punches wrong, the L.A. Times gets the number of punches wrong? — P]
Phil (88ab5b) — 11/14/2006 @ 8:30 amActualy, it depends on what the officer actually said in his report. If he said “I threw 2 punches”, he was clearly wrong, and possibly lying. If he said “I punched him twice”, well, he does punch the guy in two distinct time-frames, so it depends then on what “punched him” means.
It very much looks like he hit him with 3 quick jabs, and then continued to try to apply the second handcuff. When they guy still struggled, he attempted to apply 3 more quick jabs, landing only 2. If the officer is in the habit of applying three punch bursts to quell suspects, and did this twice in this circumstance, he might well have reported this as “punched him twice.”
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/14/2006 @ 8:35 amGee maybe he should have just taken out his service revolver and shot the guy in the head. Right Patterico?
[That’s a very silly and foolish thing for you to say. However, if the officers had followed the prescriptions of Use of Force Expert Leviticus, and had drawn their weapons as he initially suggested, that could have been the result. — P]
David Ehrenstein (1a2b16) — 11/14/2006 @ 11:05 amOn the face of it, I would say the police officer did not pepper spray the perp without cause. Why? You never, NEVER, use pepper spray or mace in a vehicle unless you want to subject all of the occupants to hours of exposure. Just transporting someone who hac been sprayed outside, in my ambulance, is tough enough. The perp either really, really had it coming or the officer hated the guy driving the car.
Chuck Simmins (1741c2) — 11/14/2006 @ 12:53 pmYou didn’t see a handcuff on both hands, did you?
Well, folks, until the guy is subdued, i.e. handcuffs on both wrists, the struggling by the perp means it’s open season on his face, and rightfully so.
Remember that, the next time you decide to resist arrest, all you deserving moles out there (as in whack a mole
Paul A'Barge (e8e9b7) — 11/14/2006 @ 1:08 pm“…Use of Force Expert Leviticus…”
-Patterico
In case you can’t read, I recanted my statement that the officers should’ve drawn their guns.
I realize that it’s easy for you or me to watch cops kick the shit out of some chump…being priviledged white whiners, we can’t relate to the guy getting his face busted.
It still seems wrong to a few of us.
You know what? FUCK trying to justify the actions of these guys. I’ve been trying, and I can’t. They pepper-sprayed some poor sap, then beat the hell out of him when he tried to rub the shit out of his eyes.
They do a dangerous job… so what? They’re still accountable for their actions.
[Yes, I know you recanted. That’s why I said “initially.” But the fact you ever said it shows that you’re way out of your depth on this topic. No credible expert on use of force would *ever* suggest something as ridiculous as you proposed. Even with the recantation, you’re jumping to conclusions, talking about things you know nothing about, allowing emotion to cloud your reason. — P]
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/14/2006 @ 1:47 pmIt’s not a foolish thing for me to say at all in the context of this blog and your real desires re “crimefighting.”
[It was a silly, foolish, ludicrous statement. Period. And this comment of yours is equally silly. — P]
David Ehrenstein (1a2b16) — 11/14/2006 @ 4:17 pmPatterico:
This is on topic only in that it displays an astounding major print media establishment misrepresentation and suppression of valid info. It truly was propagandizing and it was disgraceful.
There are many good stories today, but this is second to none. You gotta read this. I don’t trust the media and I’m shocked.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/14/2006 @ 5:20 pmAce of Spades
“Silly”? I’d say emotion has clouded your reason.
David Ehrenstein (1a2b16) — 11/14/2006 @ 5:32 pmLeviticus, here’s a convenient link for you.
Here are some more. Pepper spray ineffective at subduing combative people:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3:
Etc. (this time, from the Department of Justice)
Leviticus, will you just admit that you don’t know jack crap about this and that if you are revising your opinion of this ever two hours, maybe the officers on the scene had a better understanding of what was going on than you?
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/14/2006 @ 6:48 pmLeviticus,
You have the order wrong. The officer punched Cardenas and *then* pepper-sprayed him. According to this article.
Unless you have proof of the contrary assertion you made. Do you? I somehow doubt it.
Would you like to admit that you’re just spouting off and don’t have a clue what you’re talking about?
Patterico (de0616) — 11/14/2006 @ 10:19 pmThat makes more sense to me because when pepper sprayed, the suspect is on his stomach (which is where the officers were trying to get him).
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/14/2006 @ 10:20 pmPatterico,
Wouldn’t it be great if these jerks who play a game of “Gotcha !” with the LAPD were equally as animated by perceived “unnecessary force” used by Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, et al ?
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 11/14/2006 @ 11:56 pmDavid Ehrenstein, if anyone has let emotion cloud his reason it’s the one who thinks that people who disagree with him are the sort of monsters who want to see minor violators shot in the head.
You have no objective reason for thinking that this is what Patterico really wants, all you have is your emotional need to think that anyone who disagrees with you is morally or intellectually inferior to you. If you had to acknowledge that there are real, principled disagreements, it might shake your absolute certainty in your world view. And we can’t have that, can we?
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 11/15/2006 @ 2:39 amMight this be the video in question here?
Tom (eb6b88) — 11/15/2006 @ 4:14 amWell for starters, P, it seems that you are pretty selective in what you believe as reported by the LA Times. If they could fuck up something so simple as the number of puches, they could easily fuck up something like when the guy was pepper-sprayed.
Also, If the officers could “forget” that they punched the guy five times, they could also “forget” that he was already pepper-sprayed before they started whupping him?
“The officer said he then used pepper spray on Cardenas and CALLED FOR BACKUP”
-LA Times Article (which we’ve apparently decided to trust)
I thought that the cop on the left was calling for backup IN THE VIDEO. That’s what several of you guys asserted. So, according to the timing in the police report, he was ALREADY pepper-sprayed when the cops called for backup, and ALREADY pepper-sprayed when the cop on the right started punching him in the face.
Yes. I am just spouting off. And emotion has clouded my judgement. But it is shocking to me how so many of you are willing to dismiss this as acceptable without question. P, you were a public defender, right? What if you’d been assigned to defend this guy? Wouldn’t the situation look a lot more suspicious to you?
Christoph, I respect you as a generally level-headed individual. If you’ll recall, I said that IF I learned that the guy was pepper-sprayed when the cops started punching him, I would be pissed off, because it would look like they were beating an already immobilized man. Sure, I’m changing my position. But that’s what educated people do when new information is brought to their attention. Without pepper-spray, I was willing to believe that the cops were still trying to subdue the guy. With it, well… I think it’s doubtful. That’s a reasonable thing to say, right?
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/15/2006 @ 7:52 amDirect answer to your question, Leviticus, not if according to the Department of Justice it’s only effective 85% of the time (and according to numerous sources, when it doesn’t work it tends to enrage the suspect making him more difficult to control; by the way, I’m not criticizing the use of pepper spray, just stating that like all types of force, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, and because it doesn’t do lasting damage in most cases is certainly worth a try).
Even if the officers pepper sprayed the suspect first, which seems unlikely, I don’t understand your reasoning that if one level of force has failed (pepper spray) the officers are now not justified in using additional force (strikes, struggle) to restrain the suspect.
However, if the first type of force (pepper spray) was not attempted, then additional force (strikes, struggle) is justified.
How does the failure of one level of force to work invalidate using other techniques? How does a type of force you find abhorent become acceptable if another type of force wasn’t applied first?
Can you explain this to me?
Christoph (5ab65d) — 11/15/2006 @ 12:12 pmI could say the same of you Doc.
My experiences at the hands of the LAPD have not been pleasant. I was once dragged off a bus in broad daylight, thrown to the ground and had a revolver put to my head. I was then asked for my identification. Relazing they were looking for an opening I told them that my wallet was in the back pocket of my trousers. After rifling throught it they tossed it on the ground and left.
When I got home I turned on the news to discover a picture of the African-American male they were looking for — who bore no resemblance whatsoever to yours truly.
Do you think they should have beat me instead, or tried pepper spray?
David Ehrenstein (1a2b16) — 11/15/2006 @ 12:29 pm“How does the failure of one level of force to work invalidate using other techniques? How does a type of force you find abhorent become acceptable if another type of force wasn’t applied first?”
-Christoph
Basically, I’m taking issue with your assumption that pepper-spray necessarily failed before punches were applied.
85% of the time pepper-spray DOES work, and when it works, it *works*. I mean, I’ve read accounts of people who couldn’t breathe, who puked, cried, and drooled for hours after being pepper-sprayed. Now, there are exceptions, and this may have been one of them. But, if the suspect was pepper-sprayed prior to the punches, there is an 85% chance that he was already immobilized, and that the punches were excessive.
That’s my line of thinking. What do you think? I mean, it’s definitely POSSIBLE that the pepper-spray failed, or worsened the situation, or was applied after the punches. It just doesn’t seem likely.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 11/15/2006 @ 1:16 pmLeviticus:
Leviticus, I’m not trying to nit-pick you here. But I think we need to clairify some things you wrote here.
You mentioned “works” and “immobilized” as if they are synomous when dealing with things like pepper spray. This is not the case.
Notice that none of these effects include “immobilized.” Because that is not what it does. But what it does do is make it very difficult for people to see, and do complex motor functions.
So obviously, you wouldn’t be able to see to drive a car, or throw rocks. Also, if you were boxing, you wouldn’t be able to see and coordinate your blows and block an opponents blows. So a boxer who had been pepper sprayed would be almost totally unable to box effectively.
But that is not the case for a wrestler, or someone in a ground struggle. Believe it or not, vison is not nearly as criticle to wrestling effectively. You depend not on vision, but feeling where your opponent is and what he and you are doing.
Also, notice that one of the effects of OC/pepper spray isn’t weakness. Your eyes will water painfully and you will cough and have a runny nose. But weakness is not one of the actual symptoms.
So a person could get a dose of OC, have it be working effectively, and still resist being handcuffed using his natural muscular strenght and whatever ground fighting skill and apptitude he might have. He would not be immobilized by the OC
EFG (f0e683) — 11/15/2006 @ 1:57 pm[the point below assumes that Leviticus’ thesis is correct when he asserts that the pepper spray was probably applied before the officer used the “distraction strike” technique to cuff the suspect]
As evidenced by the fact that two officers were still struggling to try to handcuff the resisting suspect? Is that your final answer?
Christoph (5ab65d) — 11/15/2006 @ 4:43 pmSure you could, but it would be another irrational emotional response, since I have given you no reason to say such a thing.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 11/16/2006 @ 12:15 am“As evidenced by the fact that two officers were still struggling to try to handcuff the resisting suspect? Is that your final answer?”
-Christoph
They weren’t struggling to handcuff him. That’s the whole point. The situation lokked relatively controlled until the cop on the right started punching Cardenas.
*sigh*
Okay. Here’s a question for you guys: Is police brutality something that happens in the real world?
If so, then the possibility that this was an instance of it must be addressed (along with the possibility that these two cops were just doing their jobs).
By the way, was it Mace or pepper-spray that was most likely used in this situation? I’ve been treating them as though they had the same effects.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/16/2006 @ 7:16 amIt was pepper spray.
Mace proper is rarely used due to long lasting harmful effects. Well, Mace propper is now a brand name — for pepper spray since the original Mace company reformulated their product. Mace and pepper spray had different effects, technically: Mace is an irritant similar to CS (“tear”) gas and and pepper spray an inflamatory. Mace doesn’t cause inflamation of the capiliaries, only pain. Therefore, it may have no effect on those tolerant of pain or on drugs. Pepper spray would have an effect on those individuals (which may be to make them angrier in certain circumstances).
They were definitely still struggling to to get the cuffs on him. Did you see a handcuff on each wrist; I didn’t.
I really am flabbergasted by your position that they weren’t and don’t have a whole lot else to say.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/16/2006 @ 8:22 amLeviticus
Yes.
EFG (f0e683) — 11/16/2006 @ 9:09 amI knew there was a difference between Mace and pepper-spray, I just wasn’t sure which was more effective. Mace is the more severe of the two.
In that case, pepper-spray may not have immobilized Cardenas. Point conceded. Cardenas may well have continued struggling or displayed increasingly aggressive tendencies after being pepper-sprayed.
I’m going to stop commenting on this. I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally don’t know enough about the context of the situation to come to any sort of worthwhile conclusion, and it pisses me off to come across as wishy-washy.
Selah.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 11/16/2006 @ 9:54 amNo, Cartman, I just said the exact opposite!
Don’t make me come over there and bitch slap you.
— Stan
Christoph (5ab65d) — 11/16/2006 @ 12:07 pm