Ezell Ford: Why one LAPD cop was 'unjustified' in fatal shooting

The LA Police Commission found that a police officer wrongly approached and stopped Ezell Ford, a 25-year-old black man who was fatally shot in the back. 

(AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File)
A poster put up in 2014 reads "We Will Remember Ezell Ford" in front of Paradise Baptist Church before a community forum in Los Angeles, to discuss the Aug. 11 police shooting of Ezell Ford. The Los Angeles Police Commission vote Tuesday, June 9, 2015, was unanimous involving both officers, finding that the senior officer was not justified in the August shooting death of Ford, but his junior partner was justified.

The Los Angeles Police Commission found that an officer wrongly approached and stopped a 25-year-old black man last year ultimately leading to the fatal close-range shooting and therefore violated department policy, according to a new report

The commission voted unanimously during a closed session Tuesday, finding that Officer Sharlton Wampler was unjustified in the August shooting of Ezell Ford but Officer Antonio Villegas was justified.

The commission found Wampler violated policy from his initial approach through the killing of Ford. Villegas was found in violation in only one area — an earlier drawing of a gun before the final use of deadly force.

Their analysis, released hours later Tuesday, demonstrated the first application on an updated use-of-force policy, tweaked last year to better mirror language in a California Supreme Court decision.

It requires reviewers to examine whether problematic decisions or actions by officers ultimately caused the confrontations that ended in the use of deadly force.

The commission looked at the "totality" of circumstances, not just the moment deadly force was used, and it found that "deficient tactics used by (Wampler) and the legally inappropriate detention of (Ford) led to the subsequent altercation, rendered the use of deadly force unreasonable and out of policy."

Beck had recommended the officers' actions be ruled justified and said in a statement late Tuesday, "I respect the process and the decision made."

Wampler and Villegas had been assigned to non-field administrative duties before the decision. It was unclear whether that will now change.

The commission's finding means the case now goes to the Police Department's internal affairs group. The group's findings, which will likely take months, will then be forwarded to Beck, who determines what discipline the officers would face. Any decision on criminal charges would come from the district attorney.

Ford's mother, Tritobia Ford, had pleaded to commissioners amid hours of sometimes tense public comment to find the officers' actions improper, saying her son had the thought process of an 8- or a 10-year-old.

After the decision, she said she was pleased, but urged prosecutors to bring criminal charges, saying she will "ask those who killed my precious boy be brought to justice.

The ruling, she said, "strongly, on the record, stated that what happened to Ezell was wrong," according to the Los Angeles Times:

Ford had harsher words for LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, saying she doubted the chief would impose anything more than a "slap on the wrist" for the officers because the chief had found their actions justified. She also called on Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey to file criminal charges and let a jury decide the officers' fate. 

"We have not heard from you," Ford said, addressing Lacey. "We need to hear from you. The investigation is over.... You need to step up."

Attorney Steven Lerman, who represents Ford's family, said he believed both officers acted outside policy.

"It is a pitiful example of police gone wrong," Lerman said. "They never should have stopped the guy."

Craig Lally, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, called the commission's decision "purely political and self-serving." He said it would make officers less likely to engage in aggressive police work or proactive policing.

An attorney representing the two officers could not be immediately reached late Tuesday.

Mayor Eric Garcetti met with the Ford family for 45 minutes after the decision and spoke with Ford's mother about her loss.

At a news conference, he said the decision shows that "we have a system that can work. Every life matters, but due process matters as well."

Beck and the watchdog found that evidence supported the officers' contention that Ford was shot after trying to grab an officer's gun. That evidence included Ford's DNA on Wamper's holster. A previously released autopsy report appeared to support the officers' account.

According to the LAPD, Ford was acting suspiciously when he caught officers' attention in August.

The police commission report quotes the officers describing Ford as looking in their direction, walking away quickly, and having his hands in his waistband area. It also said Ford was in a gang area and in the vicinity of a group of gang members, though they had not seen him with them.

The incident escalated after Ford refused to talk to them and continued to walk away. Wampler tried to get close enough to handcuff Ford.

The department said Ford then knocked Wampler to the ground, grappling for his holstered weapon when Villegas fired two shots.

Wampler pulled out a backup gun and shot Ford in the back.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.