Patterico's Pontifications

11/15/2006

L.A. Times Issues Correction Re: Number of Punches in LAPD Video

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:49 am



The L.A. Times has issued the following correction:

Police beating: Articles in Friday’s California section and Saturday’s Section A about a police beating in Hollywood said a brief video recording of the incident showed an officer punching a suspect six times in the face. The video image shows five blows to the suspect’s face. In one other instance — the fourth of six downward motions by the officer’s right hand — he appears to grab the suspect’s arm, not punch him in the face.

The correction comes after I wrote the Readers’ Representative to make this exact point.

As of the publication of this post, the article where I originally noticed the error does not have the correction appended to it. (That story, by the way, claimed that the officer had punched the suspect in the face “at least” six times.) Nor is there a correction appended to the other story that made the same claim.

I assume appended corrections are on the way.

My leftist friends say I am making a huge deal out of the difference between five and six blows. No — the L.A. Times made a big deal out of the police misreporting of the number of blows. I merely noted that it was ironic that, in a story that faulted officers for getting the number of punches wrong, the L.A. Times got the number of punches wrong.

One wonders whether the L.A. Times will be satisfied with the officers’ reporting if they now simply write a supplemental report that reads: “For the record: We misreported the number of distraction strikes that Officer Farrell administered to suspect Cardenas in our original report. The true number was five.”

Because we all make mistakes.

What’s more, as I previously wrote the Readers’ Representative:

[I]f 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.

I assume that, as expected, the correction does not appear on the front page, but rather in a small box on Page A2, as all corrections do. I’ll let you know for sure later, when the paper makes the image of the front page available.

UPDATE 5:54 p.m. I see that both stories now have appended corrections.

9 Responses to “L.A. Times Issues Correction Re: Number of Punches in LAPD Video”

  1. Thanks for keeping on top of this and keeping the Times “honest”…sort of.

    Cop The Truth (71415b)

  2. CNN has now picked up the ‘six punches’ line.

    Alice H (079f1c)

  3. Why did the DA’s office cut Cardenas loose from the charge of using violence to resist arrest?

    At the prosecution’s request, the judge dismissed two felony charges of using violence or force to obstruct or resist a police officer, along with a gang allegation.

    Michael Yglecias, head deputy district attorney of the Central Trials Division, told reporters that “the video is obviously a part of the evidence that was examined by us.”

    “After a comprehensive review of the case that included the video that has been shown worldwide on YouTube, our office has made a decision that the criminal conduct engaged in by Mr. Cardenas on the date in question warranted a misdemeanor plea to resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer,” the prosecutor said.

    “We felt that was reasonable given our review and evaluation of all evidence that we’ve had, that we’ve obtained up ’til now, and we think it appropriately addresses his conduct on that date.” – KNBC-TV

    Cardenas pleads “no contest” to a misdemeanor, pays a $120 fine and is free on probation. Wasn’t he wanted on a felony warrant for receiving stolen property?

    steve (18814c)

  4. No link, steve?

    Well, as the sidebar says, I don’t speak for the DA’s office on this blog. And as I said in a previous post, I have absolutely no inside information about the case. If I did, I wouldn’t be talking about it. I will say that Michael Yglecias was my boss in my previous assignment and I respect him. But I’m not going to speculate about why our office took any action it took.

    As for the warrant on the receiving case, does your mystery story with no link say anything about it? The part you quote doesn’t say he is “free on probation” (i.e. out of custody), not does it say that the receiving case was dealt with in the plea bargain.

    Patterico (de0616)

  5. OK, I am finding various stories that suggest he will be immediately released. Nothing that explains what happened to the receiving case.

    Patterico (de0616)

  6. For what it’s worth, the felony charges he was facing were (from press reports) violations of Penal Code section 69, which says:

    Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon such officer by law, or who knowingly resists, by the use of force or violence, such officer, in the performance of his duty, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

    The jury instructions would look like this. The elements include:

    1. The defendant [unlawfully] used force [or violence] to resist an executive officer;

    2. When the defendant acted, the officer was performing (his/her) lawful duty;

    AND

    3. When the defendant acted, (he/she) knew the executive officer was performing (his/her) duty.

    There’s more definitions and principles at the link for the instruction.

    Patterico (de0616)

  7. Do we even know if the receiving stolen property warrant was pre- or post-conviction?

    I’m guessing post-conviction. Maybe he didn’t show up for a progress report date in court and got time served on the probation violation for that.

    Pure speculation. But it would make sense.

    Patterico (de0616)

  8. Now it’s off to civil court for the guy to try to collect his millions.

    Patterico (de0616)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0916 secs.