For those familiar with local history, it was an action reminiscent of the action taken by the L.A. County Sheriffs Department back on August 29, 1970 at Laguna Park in East L.A., the unincorporated county territory just east of the City of Los Angeles, during the Vietnam War protest, the Chicano Moratorium. The action of the LAPD in 2007 was unexplainable, at least in terms of a leadership decision. It appeared very similar to that 1970 event, although no deaths resulted. A much greater level of force and actions constituting police misconduct happened in 1970, as noted above, where Sheriffs deputies used a combination of excessive and deadly force and poor tactics, escalating "the problem" or precipitating it, depending on one's point of view, by pushing people into an area that bottlenecked or stopped their ability to exit the area, thus beginning the commotion.
That was the day L.A. Times columnist, Ruben Salazar, was killed hours later by a deputy firing a sharply-pointed tear gas projectile designed for penetrating solid walls, into a bar through a curtained entrance, striking Salazar in the temple and killing him. This seemed to be a series of inappropriate actions stacked on on another to arrive at the deadly result: Equipment wrong- Wrong device used (deadly projectile instead of cannister), the Deputy apparently did not identify the target before firing (b/c if he did, it would arguably be murder), and fired through curtains with a weapon firing a sharply pointed projectile designed for plywood wall penetration; Poor communication as later-arriving officers fired more tear gas into the already gassed bar, unaware of the first firing, and finally, the entry was delayed since they were quoted as saying they did not have gas masks. (Equipped for firing gas but not having masks? If accurate, very poor planning); There was no announcement to exit made before firing the tear gas, according to witness testimony at the inquest. See:
"COLUMN ONE: Journalist's Death Still Clouded by Questions; Friends say Ruben Salazar, whose stories often criticized police treatment of Mexican Americans, believed he was in danger. His 1970 slaying left a lasting wound." By ROBERT J. LOPEZ, TIMES STAFF WRITER (pdf file) (view as HTML)
As for the life of Ruben Salazar, you can see the 2000 web article in La Voz de Aztlan, that provides more details to put it all into context for a better understanding of the times and events. Salazar was an important figure with a presence early in the civil rights movement as one of the few sources for views relevant to and reflective of Chicanos, and other Latinos (there were fewer "others" in present relative percentages back then) that many young people have only recently come to recognize. The article in La Voz appears to me to be a pretty fair report of the situation, although there may be opinions of extreme views presented in other postings there. It's all relative to your point of view.
In the 1970 event, not much in the way of accountability during or after the event occurred, and although Salazar death resulted in a Coroner's Inquest finding of homicide, "death at the hands of another," there was no prosecution of the deputy for the death. The 2007 events were in high contrast to that time and millions of dollars were paid out for the actions of the LAPD in MacArthur Park, thoroughly recorded by the many news people present and among the victims. In 1970, Congressman Edward Roybal was important in pressing the FBI for an impartial investigation into the death and the Coroner's Inquest was later held. It was shown on television but with less fanfare than the OJ murder trial in Santa Monica years later.
Yet, you can contrast that 1970 time to now, as there was little accountability and change happening in those times, or even an acknowledgement that choices of action by the government side was possibly wrong, for that matter. In 2007, it sounded very different and I think there was even some blame expressed by Chief Bratton, placed not on the culprits of the first level of disruption, but on his own officers. That's always a liability-relevant and attitude-setting thing to hear the leader make statements almost before the dust from the event has settled.
Today, MacArthur Park will probably be the safest place in the city with a heavy police presence to ensure that. And you can expect that they are fully trained this time around to apply any law enforcement activity to the specific offenders and only at a level of force that is necessary to complete the action. Yes, today everyone should be on his best behavior, and everything should be "by the book," which somehow was put to the side in 2007. A very expensive lesson that focused on the LAPD that day, of all that day's events nationwide.
Going to the merit of this day's protest, I will leave that for the many other commenters to fill that in. I will say that the entire manner of handling protesters has done a complete change from the 60's era approach from law enforcement and government where much intolerance was the general guideline applied and actions conformed to that attitude. Now it seems to be that there is an overly accommodating invitation to any group who wants to occupy public space, consume public safety resources for the events, regardless of the cause and at the public's expense for collateral services needed.
How times have changed-
Posts
