This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.<\/p>\n
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred<\/p>\n
Los Angeles police Officer Daniel Flores may have broken the law when he secretly recorded his colleagues making ugly, unacceptable comments that were variously racist, homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise gross and unprofessional at best.<\/p>\n
So L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman is right to take this, or any, violation of the law by a badge-wearing member of our police force seriously, no matter what Flores\u2019 intent was.<\/p>\n
But Monday, Flores was arraigned on 16 felony counts that could lock him up in state prison for 13 years (he pleaded not guilty).<\/p>\n
That court hearing was preceded by an unusual and disturbing summary of the case filed with the court by Hochman. It seemed like an inappropriate attempt to smear Flores as a money-grubber with a convoluted plan to sue taxpayers into a sweet retirement (as opposed to intending to expose misconduct), while simultaneously giving an aw-shucks, it-was-all-in-good-fun defense of the ugly commentary of the recorded officers.<\/p>\n
Regardless of what Hochman\u2019s intent is in throwing the book at Flores, the result is one that will haunt this city for years to come: a police force in which the officers are clear that if you rat out the cops for misconduct, you get what you get.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe message to everyone in the police department is keep your mouth shut,\u201d said David A. Harris, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh and an expert on police misconduct. \u201cYou cannot stand up for principle or even for the policy of the police department, except at the risk of your own career and your own well-being, and perhaps your freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n
LAPD Officer Daniel Flores pleaded not guilty Monday to 16 counts of felony eavesdropping, and his lawyer accused Dist. Attny. Nathan Hochman of making \u201ca desperate effort to save face\u201d with a motion last week that sought to justify the prosecution of man who documented racist remarks by his peers.<\/p>\n
Hochman spoke with me for nearly an hour about his reasons for what many, myself included, see as his prosecutorial overreach in this case. Before I tell you the reasons why I think Hochman has it wrong \u2014 dangerously wrong \u2014 in the decision to charge Flores\u2019 so harshly, I\u2019ll tell you where we agree.<\/p>\n
First, we agree that cops shouldn\u2019t do things such as refer to Black people as \u201cmonkeys,\u201d as my colleagues Libor Jany, James Queally and Richard Winton reported allegedly happened in this case.<\/p>\n
Cops, we concur, should not call women \u201cbitches.\u201d They also should not call women \u201crapeable,\u201d even if, as Hochman\u2019s filing assures us, \u201cthe use of the phrase \u2018rape\u2019 was not in a sexual context.\u201d<\/p>\n
I am not sure what the nonsexual context of rape is, but OK.<\/p>\n
Cops should not make fun of, in no particular order, people with disabilities; candidates applying for jobs; co-workers; Asian people; Hispanic people; or people who may be overweight \u2014 as the officers in this case allegedly did.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese comments are deplorable. They\u2019re despicable. They\u2019re racist. They\u2019re homophobic. They\u2019re sexist,\u201d Hochman told me. \u201cThere\u2019s no place in our society for them, and they should be punished.\u201d<\/p>\n