Judge Orders the Names of Officers Redacted, Delays Release of Pepper Spray Report

Reynoso-pepperspray

Despite the illustration of the absurdity of attempting to protect the names of officers already in the public domain, Judge Evelio Grillo has ordered the release of the full report with redaction of names of specific officers not already named, as Lt. John Pike and Police Chief Annette Spicuzza have been named, but has stayed the release until April 20, 2012 to allow the attorneys for the Police Officer’s Union to appeal to an appellate court.

University of California General Counsel Charles Robinson said after the ruling on Wednesday, “We are pleased that Judge Grillo agrees, in almost every respect, with our arguments for full public disclosure of reports from the task force chaired by former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso. While he also ordered names of some police officers in the reports to be redacted, we would like that information ultimately to be made public.”

“He imposed a 21-day stay to allow campus police union attorneys time to decide whether they will appeal,” Mr. Robinson continued.  “During that time the task force and university are permitted to release only those parts of the report that the judge previously permitted to be released, plus a few additional sections that police union attorneys agreed to.  As a result, there still are substantial portions of the Reynoso Task Force and Kroll reports that cannot be released during the 21-day stay.”

At this point it is unclear when the report would be released.  Previously Justice Reynoso indicated he was inclined to release the entire report rather than piecemeal.  That might change if the release is extended beyond the 21-day stay.

“Judge Grillo said UC retains discretion on the timing and form of release of the reports. We will confer with Justice Reynoso about when and how the reports will be released to the UC Davis community and the general public,” Charles Robinson said.

But he, along with President Yudof, continue to back a full release to the public.

He concluded, “All of us – including Justice Reynoso and UC President Mark G. Yudof – remain committed to full public disclosure of the findings and recommendations of the task force.  Sharing and discussing the task force report with the UC Davis community – students, faculty and staff – is a vitally important step toward healing and understanding.”

Judge Grillo’s Final Ruling

This is a preliminary injunction and the standard of proof is the likelihood that the plantiff would prevail on the merit under Penal Code Section 832.7.  Judge Grillo ruled, “Petitioners have not demonstrated a ‘reasonable probability’ of success in proving that Penal Code section 832.7 prevents the Regents from disclosing the Report.”

So Judge Grillo ruled that he does not see a reasonble probablility of success in proving that the Report is expressly an investigation under section 832.5.  He added, “The Report is not within the literal language of section 832.5 because the Task Force’s investigation was not a response to ‘complaints by members of the public’ against specific officers. The Task Force was concerned with the Incident as a whole and how the policies and procedures of UC Davis and the UCDPD failed or worked.”

Specifically he ruled, “The Petitioners have not demonstrated a ‘reasonable probability’ of success in proving that the Report is a de facto investigation under section 832.5.”

Instead, he argued, “The Report is a policy level document that makes policy level recommendations. UC Davis charged the Task Force with investigating and addressing policy level problems that contributed to the Incident.”

Moreover, “The court has also considered that the Report is not within the class or type of section 832.5 records that section 832.7 was designed to protect from disclosure.”

Furthermore, the judge ruled, “Petitioners have not demonstrated a ‘reasonable probability’ of success in proving that the Report was conducted ‘in concert’ with a section 832.5 investigation.”

Judge Grillo noted both that the investigation was separate from any “IA investigation” and that there were, in fact, records withheld from the Kroll report on the basis of “peace officer personnel record provisions.”  Moreover, the judge noted, “UC Davis states that UD Davis has not shared any documents generated in the IA process with Kroll or with the Task Force.”

Judge Grillo also ruled, “Petitioners have not demonstrated a ‘reasonable probability’ of success in proving that the Report is ‘peace officer personnel records.’ “

Reading The Names

It is important to remember, at this point, that this is a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling.  However, based on the evidence presented by attorneys for the police officers, Judge Grillo ruled, “Petitioners have presented substantial evidence that they are likely to suffer significant harm if their names and identifying information is erroneously disclosed before the case can be adjudicated on its merits.”

Indeed, the judge noted, “Lt. Pike has presented a declaration detailing harassment and threats to him after he was identified as an officer who was involved in the Incident. After Lt. Pike’s name was made public, a person or persons circulated his contact information on the internet and he subsequently received hundreds of letters, over 10,000 text messages, and over 17,000 email messages. Most of the letters and messages where threatening or derogatory. In addition, unidentified persons ordered magazines, products and food for delivery to Lt. Pike’s home.”

Thus, Judge Grillo argued, “Given this history of threats and harassment, the potential harm to other officers from disclosing their participation in the Incident is far from speculative.”

The issue of future possibilities of harm, Judge Grillo held, is “speculative,” and the judge also noted, “The Regents will suffer substantial harm if it cannot disclose and discuss information and recommendations regarding the Incident until the case can be adjudicated on its merits. There is a ‘strong public policy supporting transparency in government.’ “

The Vanguard once again spoke with ACLU Staff Attorney Michael Risher, who has filed a third party brief and participated in the proceedings on Wednesday.

“It’s a preliminary injunction,” Mr. Risher said, “Judges have broad discretion to craft preliminary injunctions to fit the facts as they see them.  I don’t know all of the evidence that the judge looked at, that should become public in 21 days.”

Nevertheless, he felt that the order was overly broad.  Given the length of time that has passed since the incident, he is not sure that new revelations would bring forth the same level of harassment that Lt. Pike experienced in the days immediately following the highly publicized and volatile incident.

“It’s not clear to me that releasing the names of other officers that weren’t involved in such a notorious way of officer Pike… or didn’t pepper spray anyone but were just witnesses, would subject them to any sort of harassment, particularly now months later after people’s passions have cooled,” he said.

Michael Risher is unclear about whether the university will appeal that portion of the ruling.

“Whether we [the ACLU] will appeal that portion of the judge’s order, will really depend on [whether] we’re able to look at the rest of the report 21 days from now,” he said. He added that, at that point, if they are able to see the entirety of the report, they will be in a better position to assess whether the names are crucial to understanding the incident.

The critical question is whether the evidence supports the argument that the officers would suffer some sort of harassment and how important it is to have that information out there right now, he said.

“Eventually that information has to be released,” Mr. Risher added.  “Whether it needs to be released right now, if the rest of the report is comprehensive enough that it paints a fairly complete picture, I don’t know whether it’s worth it.”

However, with anonymity comes lack of accountability, which Mr. Risher said, “Is why eventually these names will have to be released.”

Because it is only a preliminary injunction, either the injunction will end or there will have to be a trial and the evidence presented to determine whether or not there is currently a credible threat to preclude the release of the names further.

Obviously, with every passing month, the risk to the officers of retaliation is greatly diminished.

As it stands, there is a large amount of information that could be released today, but based on the inclinations of Justice Reynoso, we do not believe that will happen.

There is also another chunk of information that the judge has ruled does not violate 832.5 or 832.7, but he has left the window open for the attorneys for the police officers to appeal.

Finally, he has ruled that the names of all but Lt. Pike and Chief Spicuzza be redacted.  UC or the ACLU could appeal that.  It seems less likely that that will happen, at least initially.  We will have more on this tomorrow.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

34 Comments

  1. Phil Coleman

    I hate it when nit-pickers point out non-substantive points of grammar, syntax, or phrasing as a feeble attempt to simply discredit the author rather than the argument.

    So, with that qualification and apology the first sentence under “Judge Grillo’s Final Ruling,” should there be a “not” inserted somewhere? Or, am I misreading the whole thing?

  2. DT Businessman

    Off topic, but good for the community. I assure you this will be a vigorous debate and well worth your attendance.

    City Council Candidates Debate
    Thursday, March 29th
    6:30pm-8:00pm
    Community Chambers at City Hall (23 Russell Blvd.)

  3. Phil Coleman

    “I’m surprised to find police so easily frightened. It is indicative of both personality and ability to perform the high stress job.”

    The far more probable explanation for this depiction is attorney posturing in support of a legal argument. Note that there has never been any attempt to document or substantiate the alleged fear factor by plaintiff attorney. There has been no mention of threats towards the named police chief, or any other named UCD official.

    What is especially puzzling is that there has there been no effort by opposing counsel or magistrate to seek verification or measurement of the threat factor.

  4. David M. Greenwald

    Apparently UCD made a showing yesterday. And there was substantial threat against Pike right after the event. There is no doubt about that at all. What needs to be determined is whether that same level of threat would exist today and I think that’s a difficult argument to sustain.

  5. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]“It’s not clear to me that releasing the names of other officers that weren’t involved in such a notorious way of officer Pike… or didn’t pepper spray anyone but were just witnesses, would subject them to any sort of harassment, particularly now months later after people’s passions have cooled,” he said.

    Michael Risher is unclear about whether the university will appeal that portion of the ruling.

    “Whether we [the ACLU] will appeal that portion of the judge’s order, will really depend on [whether] we’re able to look at the rest of the report 21 days from now,” he said. He added that, at that point, if they are able to see the entirety of the report, they will be in a better position to assess whether the names are crucial to understanding the incident.[/quote]

    Bottom line – just substitute Officer #1, Officer #2, etc. for specific names, and you will get the same sense of what happened as if the exact names were in the report. Then the threat to specific officers cannot be laid down as an argument to hold up the release of this report; and it can essentially be published in its entirety as to its intended purpose – to facilitate policy changes. What is the reasoning here, to effect policy change or to exact retribution? It appears the officers involved are already in line for discipline. Do we really need another pound of flesh? A smart lawyer w common sense would know when to quit the argument for specific names, and move on with allowing virtually the entire report to be released…

  6. David M. Greenwald

    “A smart lawyer w common sense would know when to quit the argument for specific names, and move on with allowing virtually the entire report to be released… “

    My guess is that they will do both. Why wouldn’t that be the smart attorney?

  7. biddlin

    Gutless all around . If UCD is going to play CYA, then why don’t they offer Katehi et al sufficient inducement to resign and steal away into oblivion ? Unsatisfying for us, but at least it puts this to rest . Spicuzza and Pike are beyond redemption in the eyes of the UCD community, and the rehabilitation of UCD’s image requires their sacrifice .

  8. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]You assume they are in line to be disciplined, but how would we ever even know if their names are not released?[/quote]

    So what is this about, retribution or policy change?

  9. David M. Greenwald

    “So what is this about, retribution or policy change?”

    Policy change is only one part. Accountability of the officers for their behavior is another. That’s not retribution any more than the criminal justice system or any administrative proceeding is.

  10. roger bockrath

    Pretty amusing that it took David eight paragraphs to explain all the reasons Judge Grillo gave for [u][b]not[/b][/u] [u][b]blocking release[/b][/u] of responsible parties names.

    That section of the article ends with: Judge Grillo also ruled, “Petitioners have not demonstrated a ‘reasonable probability’ of success in proving that the Report is ‘peace officer personnel records.’ “

    And then the judge goes ahead and redacts the responsible parties names anyway!

    Heaven forbid that Alexander Lee’s name should become public. He might then have to endure having a pizza that he did not order delivered to him. He could pay for it with all the pay he has received, for the last four months, for [u][b]not[/b][/u] working. And of course, the longer release of the Reynoso report is delayed, the longer we all get to pay suspended employees for doing nothing. That, in turn, will further contribute to the inefficiency that has contributed to the outrageous tuitions that led to the Occupy U.C. Davis movement,(which, or course, brought about the pepper spraying). Makes sense to me!

    The logical explanation for the April 21 timeline for release or the Reynoso Report would seem to be to allow time for U.C. and the A.C.L.U. to appeal the unsupported redaction of responsible parties names.

  11. hpierce

    @ ERM… it’s about “a pound of flesh”… pure and simple… it’s about ‘revenge’… not that I agree, but that’s what many folks want..

  12. medwoman

    Hpierce

    “…
    @ ERM… it’s about “a pound of flesh”… pure and simple… it’s about ‘revenge’… not that I agree, but that’s what many folks want..”

    I really disagree with this. Some folks may want revenge. I do not see this that way. Some of us want accountability and assumption of responsibility for personal actions and choices. If we cannot look up to our police as exemplary in this regard, how can we expect our citizens to feel respect for them and to feel safe under their protection ? Is this not the essence of the job for which we pay them. Not only to protect and defend, but also to model behavior ?

  13. hpierce

    @ medwoman… I said [maybe not as clearly as I should have] that I personally do not advocate “retribution”… I agree with [quote]Some folks may want revenge.[/quote]If you want “accountability”, what does that mean? Forfeiture of their admin. leave pay? Loss of job? Forfeiture of pension? Pillory? Apology? What do you advocate as a ‘remedy’?

  14. JustSaying

    Accountability will be just as useful in a month as it is in a week. I’m not sure that the Reynoso report will be determining accountability in any case. Lots of the comments here depend on universal acceptance that the chief and Officers Pike and Lee violated some law in pepper-spraying the demonstrators.

    I suspect there’ll be some disagreement about whether they even failed to follow their training and instructions in dealing with the kind of situation they faced, let alone broke any laws. The Reynoso investigation should tell us what was guiding the officers when they pulled their sprayers. Regardless of how awful the video looked, some feel pepper spray is a fine way to break up a crowd. Some guidance relies significantly on the officers’ judgment at a scene.

    The process we’re going through seems pretty appropriate for dealing with the Reynoso report. Follow the law, respect everyone’s rights, etc. The idea that any delay–even if to assure that the law is followed–somehow is keeping the report from hitting until public interest wanes just feeds into the idea that revenge is the objective.

    If the only changes mean Pike becomes Officer #1, etc., I don’t see how it affects the value of the report one bit. There are other investigations underway that will determine what actions are to be taken against police. The Reynoso Report is not aimed at dealing with–or equipped to deal with–punishments for the officers involved.

  15. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]I really disagree with this. Some folks may want revenge. I do not see this that way. Some of us want accountability and assumption of responsibility for personal actions and choices. If we cannot look up to our police as exemplary in this regard, how can we expect our citizens to feel respect for them and to feel safe under their protection ? Is this not the essence of the job for which we pay them. Not only to protect and defend, but also to model behavior ?[/quote]

    It appears that 6 of the officers are going to be disciplined. Isn’t that enough? As hpierce points out: “If you want “accountability”, what does that mean? Forfeiture of their admin. leave pay? Loss of job? Forfeiture of pension? Pillory? Apology? What do you advocate as a ‘remedy’?”

    What is good enough for you? And I want you to think about something, especially bc I know you to be a thoughtful person. You and I both agree that there was blame on all sides, including students. You and I both agree that the officers had more experience and a higher duty to the students. Here is where we may disagree. My feeling is that the officers were faced with an escalating situation. It is not clear to me what orders were given to these officers. The situation was volatile.

    In the end, I believe the decision to pepper spray the students was the wrong one. And I believe the officers in question should be appropriately disciplined for what they chose to do, if and only if they did not get orders from on high to do what they did. The question is what discipline would be appropriate? IMO, a period of suspension w/o pay would seem to me appropriate. If any of the officers has a consistent record of problems with overstepping their authority, then it might be time to consider someone being fired. But that is just my layman’s best guess as to what ought to be done, without knowing what the normal course of discipline usually is for this sort of thing.

    Robbing someone of their career/job is not something I take lightly. I would not support invoking such a radical solution unless absolutely necessary. Frankly, I definitely sense a lot of anti-law enforcement sentiment on this blog. But bottom line, when you need help, who do you call? I know I have had instances where I have needed assistance, and the police have been there for me. I have also had one instance where police have IMO overstepped their authority and hastled me. So I have seen both sides…

  16. hpierce

    [quote]And I believe the officers in question should be appropriately disciplined for what they chose to do, [b]if and only if they did not get orders from on high[/b] to do what they did.[/quote]Elaine, I can’t believe you would espouse the Nuremberg defense that “I was just carrying out my orders…”. Surely no professional should do something that they know is intrinsically ‘wrong’. I recall someone telling me that there is no “right” way to do a “wrong” thing.

  17. David M. Greenwald

    Elaine:

    One of the things that fascinates me is the extent to which we are talking past each other here.

    “It appears that 6 of the officers are going to be disciplined”

    Apparently the number of officers investigated is five. We certainly do not know that they will be or even should be disciplined.

    You ask what accountability means and then imply that it means I want a harsh punishment.

    Actually, what I want is:

    1. A full accounting of who did what
    2. A full accounting of what went wrong
    3. And some sort of public acknowledgment of the discipline and what that discipline entails.

    Other than John Pike, whose actions I can largely judgment based on the video, I’m not set on what that discipline ought to be. I don’t know what the officers at the scene were ordered to do and I don’t know what Spicuzza was told to do from up high. I am in particular, interested in John Meyers role in all of this as he is Spicuzza’s direct superior and has largely escaped scrutiny.

    My problem is that without some sort of public process here, I simply do not trust UCD or UC to do the right thing.

    You suggest I have an anti-law enforcement sentiment. I don’t. I like police, I think most police do their job well. But what I am not willing to do is abdicate oversight and accountability and trust that a government agency as complex as UC will simply do the right thing.

    It is one reason why I disagree with you on the ACLU’s involvement. The ACLU needs to be involved because their motives are more weighted towards transparency than either the Police Officers Union or UC.

    It’s not law enforcement I distrust, it’s anyone in the position of power who is not immediately forthcoming with a transparent account of what happened.

    Hope that explains where I am coming from better.

  18. JustSaying

    “Policy change is only one part. Accountability of the officers for their behavior is another. That’s not retribution any more than the criminal justice system or any administrative proceeding is.”

    Then I assume that you support all these delays to assure the accuseds’ rights are maintained, that you’ll insist on a fair investigation, that you won’t be prejudging anyone’s guilt, etc.–just as you’d demand for anyone in the “criminal justice system or any administrative proceeding.”. Fair enough.

  19. David M. Greenwald

    Hpierce:

    While carrying out orders is not a defense, I do think it mitigates the culpability. Also the point that arose in Nuremberg was that these were not rank and file officials, but rather they were leaders, high ranking, and they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. But it would appear that Officer Lee for example, is very young, he’s been with the department less than three years at most, and to suggest his culpability is the same as a veteran Lt. like John Pike is not fair. So I actually agree with Elaine here.

  20. JustSaying

    “Elaine, I can’t believe you would espouse the Nuremberg defense that ‘I was just carrying out my orders…’.”

    Let’s not get all Nazi here. We expect that people will carry out LAWFUL orders and respect instructions from supervisors. Using pepper spray is no a crime against humanity.

    What does UCD instruct its police to do? How does it train them to operate? It could be that these folks did exactly what they’d been trained to do. It could be that they had inadequate training to deal with this situation. In either case, they are not war criminals for the way they reacted here.

  21. David M. Greenwald

    “Let’s not get all Nazi here. We expect that people will carry out LAWFUL orders and respect instructions from supervisors. Using pepper spray is no a crime against humanity. “

    The question was the standard of culpability and the defense of carrying out orders, not a comparison to Nazism.

    “Using pepper spray is no a crime against humanity. “

    That’s a more debatable point.

    “What does UCD instruct its police to do? How does it train them to operate? It could be that these folks did exactly what they’d been trained to do.”

    You’ve seen their protocols on the use of chemical agents and use of force guidelines, what else would you want to see.

    “In either case, they are not war criminals for the way they reacted here. “

    No one said they were.

  22. E Roberts Musser

    To dmg: Thanks for your more complete explanation of your position. It seems we actually agree on almost everything except timing. IMO, the ACLU should have waited a bit before entering the fray, to give the university/university police the opportunity to do the right thing. I wanted to see if they would on their own – I consider that important. I would prefer the university/university police are not dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing, but come to the table willingly bc they know it is the right thing to do.

    Secondly, it would appear to me that many have condemned the university police without necessarily knowing all the facts. Who gave what orders is important in assessing blame here. If law enforcement acted completely on their own, I might be much less sympathetic than if orders were given from on high to do whatever it takes. Either way, IMO the officers involved went too far – but how much to discipline them is the question in my mind. I would prefer the discipline come from within, from their own department, bc we as lay people are not as familiar with the standards expected of a police officer.

  23. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]Elaine, I can’t believe you would espouse the Nuremberg defense that “I was just carrying out my orders…”. Surely no professional should do something that they know is intrinsically ‘wrong’. I recall someone telling me that there is no “right” way to do a “wrong” thing.[/quote]

    Others have covered this issue nicely. Just let me say I am not nor have I ever espoused the Nuremberg defense (LOL). In this particular situation, I thought I made it clear I disagreed with the decision to pepper spray. But IMO discipline should be left up to some sort of law enforcement body or knowledgeable committee, that better understands the standards under which police officers are supposed to operate. I don’t feel as a layperson that I am familiar enough with the issue to give an opinion on the degree of discipline for whatever infractions are deemed to have occurred. As I noted before:
    1) There was fault on all sides;
    2) The situation was volatile;
    3) We don’t know who gave what orders;
    4) We don’t have all the facts;
    5) We don’t know what discipline will be meted out as a result of the internal investigation.

  24. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]Then I assume that you support all these delays to assure the accuseds’ rights are maintained, that you’ll insist on a fair investigation, that you won’t be prejudging anyone’s guilt, etc.–just as you’d demand for anyone in the “criminal justice system or any administrative proceeding.”. Fair enough.[/quote]

    [quote]What does UCD instruct its police to do? How does it train them to operate? It could be that these folks did exactly what they’d been trained to do. It could be that they had inadequate training to deal with this situation. In either case, they are not war criminals for the way they reacted here.[/quote]

    Well said!

    Be it “Pollyanna-ish”, my hope is that when all is said and done, that a new/more effective policy will emerge that will better address the issues that arise out of a protest in regard to:
    1) The ability of the police to maintain order and protect the rights of nonprotestors/protestors alike, to keep the protest truly “peaceful”;
    2) While keeping everyone safe, including the protestors themselves.

  25. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]My problem is that without some sort of public process here, I simply do not trust UCD or UC to do the right thing. [/quote]

    But why not give them the chance to do the right thing?

  26. David M. Greenwald

    “But why not give them the chance to do the right thing?”

    Elaine: It sounds very reasonable on the surface and I understand why it’s your inclination. The problem is that we would have no way to verify that they have done the right or wrong thing.

  27. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]Elaine: It sounds very reasonable on the surface and I understand why it’s your inclination. The problem is that we would have no way to verify that they have done the right or wrong thing[/quote]

    You don’t know that. My guess would be the university would have every reason to rehabilitate their image by proving to the world that they had rectified the situation by appropriately disciplining any officers that had misbehaved…

  28. JustSaying

    [quote]“You’ve seen their protocols on the use of chemical agents and use of force guidelines, what else would you want to see.”[/quote] Actually, I haven’t or I wouldn’t have raised the question. Did they follow their own protocols? Got a link?

    I just thought it was stupid to call out Elaine for the suggesting that the pepper spray officers’ punishments should be less severe if they’d been told to take the action. (Contrary to what you suggest, the use of pepper spray with lawbreaking crowds is [u]not[/u] a war crime.) Why would you encourage hpierce to be claiming she was “espousing the Nuremberg defense” with your Nazi clarifications since you thought their instructions would “mitigate culpability”?

  29. medwoman

    hpierce

    “If you want “accountability”, what does that mean? Forfeiture of their admin. leave pay? Loss of job? Forfeiture of pension? Pillory? Apology? What do you advocate as a ‘remedy’?

    I have absolutely no idea what the correct degree of “accountability” would be since we do not yet have a full accounting of who was giving the orders, what the protocols are and what the available sanctions are.
    What we do know from previous posts ( assuming those to be correct) is that for this strength of pepper spray, the minimum suggested distance is 6 feet. From looking at multiple clips, at least some of the spraying appears to have been done at closer range. This would imply either a lack of training, or a breech of training on the part of the individual officers.

    So what would I have recommended ? Even on the day after the pepper spraying I was recommending restraint and patience and strongly speaking out against calls for firing and resignation. I think that speculation about what my position would be including verging on the ridiculous with pillory is nothing but a distraction.
    I never recommend revenge or individual punishment as a remedy. What I would recommend is a systems approach as follows:
    1) Apology – when ones actions have caused injury to another, regardless of motive, I feel apology is always
    the civil and appropriate choice. Apology does not imply guilt merely empathy with harm done.
    2) A full and prompt cooperation with investigations rather than attempting to shield anyone from scrutiny
    If there are legal considerations that stop individuals from being named ( although a little ridiculous in this
    case in my opinion since the photos were plastered all over the internet) the “Officer # 1” solution could
    have been used.
    3) A systems analysis of the event rather than one based on finger pointing. Laying the blame on individuals
    and a “heads must roll” approach is rarely productive of anything but a senseless blood bath and the
    tendency to cover up the current and future misadventures as much as possible. A systems approach allows
    for a thorough review of all aspects of the event with the specific goal of improving the process of handling
    similar situations in the future.
    4 ) With regard to individual punishment, I probably would be much more lenient than the law. I usually am
    because I do not believe in “punishment” as an effective strategy. Retraining, certainly. Placement in a more
    suitable position for repetitive infractions, certainly. But firing someone or any of the other punitive
    approaches you list, are exactly that, “what you listed” and bear no relation to what I would suggest.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for