Oversight Report Confirms What Multiple Sheriffs Have Denied: The LA Sheriff’s Department Has A Gang Problem

from the presiding-in-denial dept

Los Angeles may have a gang problem. But so does its sheriff’s department. What’s already toxic about law enforcement culture has been embraced, cultivated, and amplified by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and its leaders, a steady string of shitty sheriffs willing to give deputies the longest of leashes.

Still, sheriffs pretend there isn’t a problem. The last head of the department, Alex Villanueva, posed as a reformer to win the election but once in office, made sure the gang business was more usual than ever. Villanueva, after promising to clean up the troubled department, went on the attack against the LASD’s many critics, raiding their houses and threatening them with lawsuits for telling the truth.

There’s a new sheriff in town. Robert Luna now heads the department — another candidate presenting himself as a reformer, even though his law enforcement history doesn’t exactly indicate he’s a go-getter willing to remove bad apples from the barrel.

As the new man with the big badge, Sheriff Luna now has to deal with the problems previous sheriffs refused to deal with. Villanueva flatly denied the existence of deputy gangs. But Luna won’t have that luxury, thanks to a recent report [PDF] from the department’s civilian oversight board. (h/t NBC News)

The 70-page report opens with assertions that don’t really lend themselves to denial.

The Department currently contains several active groups that have been, and still are, engaged in harmful, dangerous, and often illegal, behavior. Some of these groups have engaged in acts of violence, threatened acts of violence, placed fellow Deputies at risk of physical harm, engaged in acts celebrating officer involved shootings, and created a climate of physical fear and professional retribution to those who would speak publicly about the misconduct of such groups. Publicly released deputy body camera video illustrates such misconduct directed to a member of the public. For that reason, going back 30 years to the Commission led by Judge James J. Kolts, these groups have been fairly referred to as “Deputy Gangs.”

“Currently contains.” The problem still exists, which is unsurprising because no sheriff — past or present — has made any serious attempt to root out this long-running problem.

That leads directly to the commission’s (sadly, not criminal) indictment of former sheriff Alex Villanueva.

While the prior Sheriff publicly asserted that he had acted to eliminate Deputy Gangs, in fact he facilitated their continued presence by, among other things, appointing known tattooed members of Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques to leadership positions in the Department, permitting the revival of emblems signifying membership in such groups and repeatedly relying upon an erroneous statement of law to avoid promulgating and enforcing a policy prohibiting Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques in the Department.

This concludes with another shot directly across the departing sheriff’s bow:

The claim that Deputy Gangs no longer exist in the Department is flatly and inarguably false.

The commission isn’t just speculating about the existence of deputy gangs. The report is supported by eighty witness statements, dozens of depositions, and other Los Angeles government agencies, including the county Inspector General, which found its office denied access to LASD employees and records by Sheriff Villanueva.

What the oversight commission didn’t have access to was Sheriff Villanueva himself. Villanueva and his second-in-command (Timothy Murakami) repeatedly refused to be interviewed or deposed by commission’s investigators.

Evidence of deputy gangs dates back a half-century. An internal memo created in 1973 documents the existence of an LASD gang known as the “Little Devils” that had 38 members. Over the next half-century, more evidence came to light, exposing additional gangs and the abusive behavior of their members, who frequently violated the rights of the citizens they were supposed to be serving.

The Little Devils started it. Many others followed. The gangs identified by documents, depositions, and testimony include the Vikings, Banditos (whose members severely beat other deputies who weren’t gang members), the Mexican Mafia, the Regulators, and the Jump Out Boys. Internal and external investigations showed these gangs often refused to respect the chain of command and used their leverage to secure various benefits (time off, desk jobs, cushy patrol options) for themselves and their members.

The previous two sheriffs’ unwillingness to do anything about deputy gangs extended to their promotion process, which resulted in the elevation of gang members to second-in-command positions.

Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques are embedded in the culture of the Department, either tolerated or ignored. Indeed, during the tenure of Sheriff Baca, the Undersheriff, Paul Tanaka, was a tattooed member of the Vikings. According to numerous witness interviews, former Sheriff Villanueva’s Undersheriff, Tim Murakami, has a Caveman tattoo.

What passes as deterrence is actually just a revolving door for gang members.

There are at least a half dozen, and possibly more, Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques currently in the Department, primarily at patrol stations. They include the Executioners, the Banditos, the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys and the Reapers. There are reports that new Deputy Cliques are forming as members of existing Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques retire or otherwise leave the Department. There is some evidence indicating that Deputy Cliques are re-emerging in the Los Angeles County jails as the 4000 Boys.

Merely transferring members of Deputy Gangs or Deputy Cliques has not proved particularly effective. After the CCJV’s 2012 findings confirmed the existence of the 2000 and 3000 Boys on the second and third floor of MCJ [men’s central jail], many of these deputies were transferred out of the jail to patrol. Many of the 3000 Boys sought assignments to Compton Station and became Executioners; many 2000 Boys sought assignment to Century Station and became Spartans.

The LASD is being destroyed by its gangs. The inmates are running the asylum, encouraged by the lack of pushback from department officials — some of whom obviously recognize the threat gangs pose to them and their careers. The LASD is stocked full of criminals, all of them wearing badges.

Deputy Cliques run the stations or units where they exist, as opposed to the sergeants, lieutenants and the captain who are charged with the duty to run the station; exercise influence over and often decide assignments and shifts, training, and overtime; exclude deputies from the Deputy Cliques, often based on race, ethnicity or gender; intimidate deputies that are not part of the Deputy Cliques; give orders not to provide backup to disfavored deputies who are not members of the Deputy Cliques; order work slowdowns if management of a station attempts to rein them in; encourage a “we-they” attitude, not just between them and the public, but with other deputies within the station; operate in secrecy; lie in reports to protect each other; and threaten the public with use of excessive force without justification and belittle deputies unwilling to engage in such acts.

Most troubling, they create rituals that valorize violence, such as recording all deputy involved shootings in an official book, celebrating with “shooting parties,” and authorizing deputies who have shot a community member to add embellishments to their common gang tattoos.

[…]

Deputy Gangs and Deputy Cliques also have used and continue to use assaultive behavior against fellow deputies who do not belong to their groups as a show of power and influence.

Contributing to the problem? The department’s union and county prosecutors, neither of which have made any effort to deter gangs or prosecute deputies for violating rights and/or assaulting non-gang members. The county’s lawyers have pitched in as well, defending deputies in court even when the violations or criminal acts occurred when these officers were off duty.

The commission makes several recommendations, all of which are likely to be ignored. Gang membership should be a policy violation with termination attached. The new sheriff should make gang elimination a priority, something his predecessors never did. And expansion of supervisory positions should be implemented to provide more resistance against gang control of patrol stations and jails. The commission also suggests massive restructuring of command personnel to eliminate support of gangs and cliques. It also suggests a reshuffling of personnel to separate deputies from other member of their gangs.

Will any of this work? Who knows? It literally has never been tried. Someone with a very strong will is needed and the current sheriff doesn’t appear to be that person. Whatever comes of this, the department can no longer pretend it doesn’t have a gang problem. It’s all there in black and white. What it chooses to do about this will show the county’s residents whether or not the department is worthy of any trust at all. So far, it has yet to demonstrate it is.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Oversight Report Confirms What Multiple Sheriffs Have Denied: The LA Sheriff’s Department Has A Gang Problem”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Problem' implies something they want to fix

The issue is that to the department having a bunch of gangs on the payroll isn’t seen as a problem and certainly not one they want to get rid of which means they can be technically telling the truth when they say that they do not in fact have a gang problem even if they are hosting and paying a bunch of gang members.

Bofors says:

Re:

…yeah, you nailed it– the “Gangs” are a feature-not-a-bug in these sheriffs departments … from the department-insider viewpoint.

Thus, no need for Sheriffs to fix anything internally — just an external phony public relations effort to calm ‘dopey’ critics who lack the insider wisdom of real sheriffs & deputies.

Insiders view these “gangs” as positive teamwork & bonding that improves job performance.

Of couse American police-culture is a dangerous mess everywhere, but ranking police/sheriff/LEO supeRvisors are the root cause of the ‘problem’ and no source of solution.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I agree with you. To expand:

  1. The purpose of a system is what it does. The system is not broken, but fully functional – LASD do a perfectly adequate job of protecting capital and brutalizing the working class. The presence of gangs is fundamentally irrelevant to this.
  2. Nothing will change until the system is changed, and system level consequences imposed. This involves truly mass firings, mass prosecutions, policymakers who made this possible also sent to jail, etc.
  3. None of point two will happen, because of point one.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Disgusting!

That sound you hear is davec trembling his lip, desperate to think of an excuse.

I’ve always questioned the mental fitness of anyone who has more than one tattoo. Unfortunately they have had to lower standards because of recruitment problems. I agree that gangs, cliques, or subgroups should not be allowed in law enforcement. Here is an article on Undersheriff April Tardy and a picture of her posing with her fellow gang members. Disgusting!
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Second-In-Command Has Alleged Gang Tattoo – L.A. TACO (lataco.com)
https://www.lataco.com/sheriff-gang-tattoo/

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately they have had to lower standards because of recruitment problems.

Dude, a federal court once ruled that a police department was in the right when the department rejected an applicant for being too smart. Don’t blame “recruitment problems” for standards that police departments purposefully keep low.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re: I have my fingers crossed.

like so many others, have a major problem with it’s Police Officers in general, not just a Gang Problem!!

Two years ago I predicted it would take 10 years for law enforcement to recover from the George Floyd debacle. Now I think it is going to take much longer. Unfortunately that means higher crime, increased poverty, and a lower quality of life and as always this will affect Black and brown communities the most. However, LAPD may have an answer. I have my fingers crossed.
Los Angeles police union proposes to stop sending armed officers to these calls (ktla.com)
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/lapd-may-no-longer-send-armed-officers-to-these-police-calls/

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

However, LAPD may have an answer. I have my fingers crossed

Guy, these were exactly the kind of solutions that were being proposed to you when the BLM riots really erupted. It was explained to you that sending armed cops to handle the mentally troubled, the homeless, the minor offenses, etc was a bad idea, because your team basically does nothing but escalate. Maybe sending less armed cops would be a better idea.

And do you remember what was your response? “Oh, but firefighters and psychologists won’t go in without the police backing them up. Cops won’t go into these situations unless they’re armed to the teeth because all these mentally ill people, who probably deserve it for criminal activity, will threaten them. All of you scumbags who want less armed cops out on the street are really criminal apologists who want me and my son dead.”

People read your comment history, davec. I get that the solution looks good to you now only because it’s the LAPD proposing it. But you don’t get to take credit for an idea you were originally very against and angry about.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Guy, these were exactly the kind of solutions that were being proposed to you when the BLM riots really erupted.

What was explained during the BLM riots was defunding the police and as AOC said, “defund means defund”. Which is also why I bought a gun for the first time in 50 years.

People read your comment history, davec. I get that the solution looks good to you now only because it’s the LAPD proposing it. But you don’t get to take credit for an idea you were originally very against and angry about.

I’m not taking credit, but it does seem like a step in the right direction. I’m wondering why liberal cities like Portland and Seattle haven’t considered it. Maybe because it was proposed by a Police union?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

For what reason does it seem like a step in the right direction only when the police or a cop-friendly lawmaker makes the suggestion and never when literally anyone else makes the suggestion?

The scenario presented before had either all cops armed or all cops unarmed. The talk was to send psychologist, paramedics, or firemen into unsecured areas to deal with drug use homelessness or initially non-violent calls. That would only last until one of them was killed or injured then there would once again be a demand for armed officers. They also talked about ceasing traffic stops and patrols. Essentially just have the police in their stations or cars waiting to be called.

The LAPD scenario calls for some cops to be armed and some to be unarmed. The police who had been dealing with all the situations before have a better sense of the danger in answering the different calls. They should generate the list of what calls go to unarmed vs armed response. Sworn officers (whether armed or unarmed) are the only ones who have authority to lay hands on or cite people (Seattle found that out the hard way).

It may be a step in the right direction, but it isn’t going to diminish the number of suicides by cop so don’t look for a significant drop in police killings. There will be unforeseen problems (there always are), but it seems promising.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The scenario presented before had either all cops armed or all cops unarmed.

You didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the first one.

The talk was to send psychologist, paramedics, or firemen into unsecured areas to deal with drug use[,] homelessness or initially non-violent calls. That would only last until one of them was killed or injured then there would once again be a demand for armed officers.

No, the talk was to send people who were better equipped to deal with certain types of emergencies into situations where they could better deal with those emergencies than could police officers whose primary mode of handling an emergency is “order people to do something and shoot them if they don’t”.

As for that last bit: I don’t doubt that a situation where a non-police first responder could be hurt or even killed. But the same could be said of armed first responders. Would you suggest that a cop being killed during a situation that initially started off as non-violent should lead to a demand for even more police officers with even more guns⁠—or a more militarized loadout⁠—to answer such calls?

The LAPD scenario calls for some cops to be armed and some to be unarmed.

And if literally anyone else outside of the LAPD had made that suggestion, would you have said “sounds good” instead of demonizing that person as somehow being anti-cop?

The police who had been dealing with all the situations before have a better sense of the danger in answering the different calls. They should generate the list of what calls go to unarmed vs armed response.

It’s one thing to make this suggestion. It’s a whole other ballgame to put it into practice because if you leave that decision up to the police, chances are high that they’ll almost always choose an armed response even when the situation seems non-violent⁠—especially if the situation involves a Black person. I’m not saying the cops shouldn’t be called in on, say, a mental health emergency situation where the person is armed with a weapon like a knife or a baseball bat. But when the situation isn’t that serious and armed cops respond anyway, what would that say about a system meant to help the police do less of the kind of work they’re generally not equipped to handle with any response other than violence?

It may be a step in the right direction, but it isn’t going to diminish the number of suicides by cop so don’t look for a significant drop in police killings.

I…but…fucking what

What the fuck does that have to do with anything in re: suggesting that cops not answer every call for a wellness check or a mental health emergency? What, do you think everyone who makes those kinds of calls wants to commit suicide and thinks calling the cops is the best way of doing that? What the actual fuck are you trying to say there?

There will be unforeseen problems (there always are), but it seems promising.

It only “seems promising” to you now because a cop suggested it. Had anyone else suggested it, I can all but guarantee that you would be complaining about “woke” lawmakers trying to get people killed by putting them in dangerous situations with ultraviolent mental health degenerates or however you want to phrase that. You didn’t think this was a good idea until a cop said “hey, this might be a good idea” and then you were all over it. That makes you a hypocrite at best and a liar at worst.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

No, the talk was to send people who were better equipped to deal with certain types of emergencies into situations where they could better deal with those emergencies than could police officers

When this was initially discussed my son told me that his department had called a mental health crisis counselor to deal with a man who had barricaded himself in his own bathroom with a gun and was threatening suicide. The counselor talked to the man for nearly an hour and then said to the cops “you are going to have to take him in. How are you going to get him out of there?”

I am not sure what should be done when someone is threatening to harm themselves or others, but sending in armed police is what the police are trying to avoid yet it is not one of the 28. As I said “sounds good” and a “step in the right direction” but will it have an impact?

And if literally anyone else outside of the LAPD had made that suggestion, would you have said “sounds good” instead of demonizing that person as somehow being anti-cop?

What the LAPD put forward does correspond with what my son has been telling me. Someone else in this forum suggested police officers not be armed until they have been on the force for at least 5 years. The LAPD scenario would seem to fit well with that.

It only “seems promising” to you now because a cop suggested it.

As I said, “There will be unforeseen problems.” If unarmed police officers become targets, that will end it. I could speculate about many drawbacks, but the fact that a cop is suggesting it seems encouraging.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

When this was initially discussed my son

Ah, yes. When any change is suggested or implemented you do always default to “your son” as the yardstick for whether anything is going to work, because no other standard of evidence will be enough.

What the LAPD put forward does correspond with what my son has been telling me

Your son has been telling you that he’s never, ever seen any form of misbehavior by cops. All that means is that you have a vested interest in trusting whatever the LAPD feeds you, despite a history that suggests skepticism is the wiser course of action.

If unarmed police officers become targets, that will end it. I could speculate about many drawbacks, but the fact that a cop is suggesting it seems encouraging.

To hear you talk about it, cops have always been targets. You talk about the drawbacks cops face all the time. If a fox suddenly starts talking about how henhouses should have stronger security, it’s not the responsibility of hens to roll out the red carpet.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

What was explained during the BLM riots was defunding the police

Considering that your police funds were being dedicated to more dangerous weaponry from military surplus? Defunding your exorbitant resources was very much an understandable option. But then you’ve vigorously defended police access to Hellcats before, so it really is no surprise you have to keep waving AOC in front of you as a bogeyman, because she encapsulates everything you hate: women and people of color in a position of power for a change.

I’m not taking credit, but it does seem like a step in the right direction

If someone suggests that the barn door needs to be closed after the horses have already run away for fifty miles, that’s not something deserving of praise.

Maybe because it was proposed by a Police union?

Even bodycams weren’t immediately, simultaneously implemented for all cops.

When someone previously against an idea starts advocating for it, it’s worth being a little skeptical.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Considering that your police funds were being dedicated to more dangerous weaponry from military surplus? Defunding your exorbitant resources was very much an understandable option. But then you’ve vigorously defended police access to Hellcats before, so it really is no surprise you have to keep waving AOC in front of you as a bogeyman, because she encapsulates everything you hate: women and people of color in a position of power for a change.

AOC has far more power than I have so when she said “defund means defund” I assumed that would happen. I disagreed with it and still do. No hate involved.

You are probably a big fan of Condoleezza Rice. I know I am.

BTW a Dodge Hellcat police car is approx. $35,000 while an MRAP was essentially free. No need to debate it further.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

AOC has far more power than I have so when she said “defund means defund” I assumed that would happen

And yet when Trump insisted that the raid on Mar-a-lago was because the FBI was looking for Hilary’s emails and people took that claim as a sig of him lying, your sort insisted that it didn’t count because he was joking. Apparently the weightage of power seems to vary depending on how much you like a person.

No hate involved.

Your track record strongly suggests otherwise.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’d like to remind everyone that accusing people of being a Marxist is a dangerous accusation for the accusee. Ie, the one being accused.

Some of us live in places where being a Marxist is an arrestable offense.

And while personally, I agree with Marx’s critiques of capitalism, I do not agree with the solution he proposes, save for one very interesting part: the part about revolutions.

Especially in this day and age. Where, ahem, the “right” have used violent revolution, usually to disappointing and disastrous effects.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...