The 1999 shooting death of Margaret Mitchell, a 55-year-old homeless woman, by LAPD Officer Edward Larrigan looked like a classic example of excessive force. But, in a closed hearing last month, the departments board-of-rights panel ruled that Larrigans actions were within police policy and required no disciplinary action at all.
The shooting took place at La Brea Avenue and Fourth Street when Larrigan and his partner, Kathy Clark, both bike-patrol officers, attempted to stop the 5-foot-1, 102-pound Mitchell to find out if her shopping cart was stolen. Mitchell ignored the officers and walked away. The cops tried again, and Mitchell allegedly lunged at Larrigan with a 12-inch screwdriver. Yet, according to police accounts, Larrigan took time to call for backup and considered using pepper spray.
Instead, supposedly afraid for his life, the 27-year-old, physically fit officer shot the small woman fatally in the chest.
With its ruling, the panel disregarded the L.A. Police Commission, which had voted 3-2 that Larrigans actions were not warranted. Since the commission is the last word on the subject, according to the L.A. City Charter, many found the situation extremely troubling.
Worse, the panel conducted its hearing in secret, declining to notify Mitchells lawyer, Leo Terrell, who contends that he was told specifically that he could attend. (It was Terrell who got the city to pay Mitchells family $975,000 in a civil settlement.) This is an ominous sign of just how little political reform has really melted the inner iceberg of the LAPD, said Tom Hayden.
Former Police Commissioner Dean Hansell called the panels decision very disappointing, adding that the commission found even Larrigans pre-shooting actions questionable. At one point Mitchell rolled the cart in Officer Larrigans direction, said Hansell. Larrigan caught the cart with his foot, then shot it back toward her. He had possession of the cart which was the point of the matter and he sent it back at this mentally ill woman. It was only then that she found the screwdriver.
It also bothered Hansell that Larrigans account evolved as the case developed. When we read the transcripts, we found that the term lunging was suggested by the investigator. Larrigan originally used a more neutral term.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
After spending 150 hours reviewing evidence, concluded Hansell, we felt very clear that Margaret Mitchell was not a serious threat to Officer Larrigan or anybody else.
A cop who witnessed the incident agreed. Officer John Goines, who was across the street when the shooting occurred, told investigators that Larrigans actions were simply not necessary. He said that Mace or a police baton would have been sufficient, said Goines attorney, Bradley Gage. He was pressured by command staff to change his story. When he refused, he started to have problems in the department.
Civil rights attorney Connie Rice said that the panels decision points to deeply rooted issues within the LAPD culture. The more seasoned cops will admit privately that its an overreaction, she said. But the attitude is, We have to back rookies no matter what, because if we dont, theyll be afraid to use force, and that might get someone killed. In other words, the discipline ends up being hijacked to support the informal police culture, which tends to see everything through the prism of a stage-10 alert.
The answer, said Rice, is an independent review board, akin to that currently operating at the Sheriffs Department. The cops arent in the position to ensure the interests of the community and the Constitution, Rice said. We need a well-calibrated system of checks and balances for the LAPD. Right now that doesnt really exist.