The Second Lesson of Gardena

The first lesson was there for all to see, but not too many people saw it, or at least realized it was a lesson of grave importance at the time.  Brooklyn criminal defense lawyer Ken Womble did, and it compelled him to write about it.

California law enforcement attorneys from across the state banded together to advance the idea that the public should not have access to the three dashcam videos that captured the Gardena shooting.  They claim that releasing the video to the public would violate the privacy of the officers involved in the shooting and could possibly interfere with “investigations.”

And it seems more than slightly hypocritical to claim “privacy interest” for one of your own while you have no problem holding press conferences to announce the alleged crimes of a private citizen, prior to any due process or actual conviction.

There were a few things known at the time. There was one man dead, another wounded, who were helping to find a bike thief for a friend, but had the misfortune to also be Hispanics on bicycles, which made them inherent suspects.  There was an investigation by police and the district attorney who concluded that it was a righteous shoot.  And there was a $4.7 million settlement.  It didn’t add up.

There was video of the killing, but Gardena kept it under wraps.  Usual excuses, but the smell was that they paid out all that money so that they would never have to disclose the video. Money paid, move along.

The families of the man killed, the man shot, refused to be told to go away, and sought the release of the video. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson explained to Gardena, over vehement opposition, that their $4.7 million didn’t buy them concealment from the public, but just the opposite. It was the public’s money they spent, always a shock to some government officials, and so the public gets to see what they spent it for.

The video has since been released, and the public money was spent to conceal an execution.

This is the second lesson of Gardena.  In retrospect, everyone is well-aware that these men weren’t armed or engaged in any crime. Ricardo Diaz Zeferino had the mindset of a guy who was helping a friend to find a bike thief. He was on the good-guy curve.  He had no reason to behave in an obsequious manner; he had nothing to hide.  What were they going to do, shoot him for being the good guy?

Diaz Zeferino wouldn’t be aware that a simple bike theft had been called out to patrol officers as a robbery. It was a screw-up, as a robbery implied the use or threat of force, meaning someone is potentially armed. So the cops begin with a mindset fashioned by a dispatch mistake.  Mistakes happen, someone will mutter, and that’s true. But cop mistakes mean civilians die. That happens too. Too often.

Then there is the color presumption, because some Hispanics on bikes, when looking for a bike thief, are prime suspects. Because Hispanics on bikes are still Hispanic. No questions. No risks. Guns drawn, assumptions made.  Lives at risk won’t be those of the two cops doing their tour that night, because they know the First Rule of Policing.  Diaz Zeferino, on the other hand, didn’t know about the rule.

The cops told Diaz Zeferino to keep his hands in the air, yet he waved them around, even took off his hat.  What part of keep his hands up did he not understand?  The same part, no doubt, as every person who doesn’t have it locked in his brain that he comply like his life depends on it.

At Fault Lines, ex-cop Greg Prickett, who understands the latitude needed to make it home for dinner differently than I do, calls it an execution.  Also at Fault Lines, Womble calls out the grave threat of arm waving against command presence that makes it into police reports with the usual lies that make the ordinary seem threatening.

But the video revealed the truth that no one wants to believe, how easily someone ends up dead for no good reason, and how much the cops will pay to keep us from knowing that the rules of the game are that they will kill before taking any chance, tolerating any possibility, that any harm ever come to them.  It’s not just shoot first, but shoot a few steps ahead of first just to be sure.

Personal Memo: Hey judge, remember when I told you in ’87 that the cops murdered my client for nothing?  There was no video then, and you ridiculed the notion, because cops would never do such a thing, because they were brave and wonderful. Remember that, you smug, arrogant piece of shit? A guy was murdered and you covered it up because you loved your cops so much.  You always loved the cops so very much. Well, fuck you, your honor.

6 thoughts on “The Second Lesson of Gardena

  1. John Barelycorn

    Diaz Zeferino was drunk that covers it!

    Meanwhile, the forearm muscles disguising the tendons controlled by nerve clusters that eventually connect the trigger finger to spine are afraid, Trained to be afraid. Perhaps have even been joining and recruited by the peace keepers to actualize the normalcy of fear.

    Badges get no respect these days though! Go figure the held posture of Diaz Zeferino friends when the speed of sound was lagging behind the lead that was already ripping through his body.

    You really think a four syllable word aggregated repeatedly is enough?

    And why not send a personal note ON BEHALF OF YOU, YOUR DEAD CLIENT, and his family at the end of a post instead of on a piece of fucking paper attached as a PDF redacted?

    Pull this post and let your boiling blood simmer. Chances are good even if you took up drinking and bicycling that you wouldn’t even get a DUI if you bent a stop sign, knocked yourself out, and were rescued by the police.

  2. L

    ” more than slightly hypocritical to claim “privacy interest” ”

    No. Well, yes. But not just “more than slightly hypocritical.” It’s so wrong and offensive it makes me want to puke. (I just wrote like 500 words on the subject and then deleted them without posting because what’s the fucking point? It’s as wrong, and deeply dangerously wrong, as anything can be. All involved should be ashamed.)

    On the subject of your personal memo: which judge?

    1. SHG Post author

      There are times when something is so flagrant that subtlety can be used, even on the internets. It’s usually a dangerous thing, unless one enjoys being lambasted by every dumbass with a keyboard.

      As to your question, if I wanted to name the judge, I would have named the judge.

      1. John Barelycorn


        Stereo will bring it home, you can’t miss with the outrage!?

        Narcan is nearly free.

  3. Ray Lee

    I’d like to suggest a post on the third lesson from Gardena — the prosecutor’s memo that it was a good (at least lawful) shooting. As bad as it is that cops shoot unarmed civilians who present no objective threat, and as bad as it is that a government entity thinks that they can use taxpayer dollars to pay hush money to prevent taxpayers from learning what public servants did on their behalf, this type of situation will occur over and over again so long as we (to specifically include our police forces) never learn lessons from past experiences. The prosecutor’s memo was written after viewing the video & witness interviews (they are addressed in the memo) but then stressed exclusively subjective concerns of the shooters to justify the shooting. This simply can not be the standard. I am not anti-cop and do not think police should have to face unreasonable risks without taking action BUT, we shouldn’t, as a society, let subjective factors dictate whether one citizen is allowed shoot another citizen whether the shooter is a cop or a civilian. I understand and empathize with the concept of the police officer who wants to be able to go home after his shift; I also empathize with the concept of the civilian who wants to be able to go home (or at least safely to jail) after he or she is forced to have some interaction with a police officer.

    1. SHG Post author

      Wow, your first comment at SJ and already you’ve completely enlightened a readership of lawyers and judges. This is the coolest comment ever.

Comments are closed.