Atty. Carl Douglas Just Won $3.8 Million From LA County. Will It End the Use of "Less Lethal" Force?
August 28, 2025 • 42 mins
Atty Carl E. Douglas recently won $3.8 million dollars from LA County for a deputy's use of so-called "less lethal" force on his clients. Atty. Douglas is in private practice at Douglas / Hicks Law in Los Angeles. Mr. Douglas is the former Managing Attorney at the Law Offices of Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. where he was employed for over eleven years until opening his own practice in March 1998. Although he is perhaps best known for his successful work as the Coordinator of O.J. Simpson’s criminal defense team, Mr. Douglas now represents plaintiffs in state and federal courts in his diverse civil litigation practice.
https://www.instagram.com/ced.esq/
https://www.instagram.com/diprimaradio/
https://www.instagram.com/ced.esq/
https://www.instagram.com/diprimaradio/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
He's in the studio, one of your favorite attorneys. He's
in private practice at Douglas Hicks Law in Los Angeles.
He was try a Lawyer of the Year for two
thousand and six by the Consumer Attorneys Association with Los
Angeles's former managing attorney at the law offices of Johnny L.
Cochran Junior, where he worked for over eleven years until
he started his own practice back in ninety eight. He
(00:24):
was successful and his work as coordinator of OJ Simpson's
Criminal Defense Team aka the Dream Team. A frequent commentator
on all the national news shows, but he always makes
time for the black owned ones as well. Attorney Carl Douglas,
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
My sister. It is always a gracious pleasure being in
your presence. Thank you for having me today.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Yeah, thanks for coming in. I mean we've talked about
this before in passing because of other cases that you
have had, and just because of the ongoing conversation here
in Los Angeles where we're broadcasting from about the way
something called less lethal forms of weaponry are used by
law enforcement. It's become an issue of late with the
(01:14):
ice rays and the treatment of journalists, but it's an
issue that you've been dealing with over the years. I mean,
what is less lethal? It means you'll be less dead.
How do they what's a legal characterization of that?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
It is really a misnomer, a misconception, because though it
is indeed called less lethal less than lethal projectiles, even
the trainers train their law enforcement officers that they are
capable of causing serious injury or death when they are
struck by someone above the shoulders. They're designed not to
(01:48):
strike someone in the growing, but they're designed for what's
called area dispersal, to compel a protester to leave an
area that he should not be, either because he's trying
to throw back a canister of tear gas or go
to an area that is that is unwanted by the police.
But they are projectiles. Different agencies have different kinds. The
(02:10):
LAPD has one type. The county the case that I
was in most recently had a different type.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So that's the county that's there, sheriffs. Yeah, yes, so
they have They just designate it as such. It's it's
not like a legal category. They just say this is
less lethal because it doesn't have traditional bullets.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yes, they are projectiles that sting and they typically do
not cause death unless it is targeted at an improper area,
which is above the shoulders, and in fact, the training
says you only target someone above the shoulders if it
includes a deadly forced circumstance, because those weapons are indeed
capable of causing death.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And so my understanding was that the some of the police,
say agencies, particularly LAPD I don't know about the sheriff,
had changed their policy in regard to the use of
less lethal weaponry, meaning they're not supposed to use it
as readily correct.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
The problem is that law enforcement officers often react because
they are afraid. Though they are trained to act in
a certain way, you can't duplicate the stress, the chaos
of a live protest circumstance that they often confront in
Los Angeles, on the streets of Los Angeles, because oftentimes
(03:36):
the protesters do not look like them, they don't have
a sense of humanity towards them, and they simply fire
because they are often afraid.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
But I mean, there is no there's no training in
the world that will teach you to see someone as
a human being or a colleague if you don't see
them as such.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Indeed, but when the object of your enforcement does not
look like your brother or your uncle, or your daddy,
or your granddad or your neighbor. There is a greater disconnect.
I contend that's why it's so important that people of
color join police agencies across the nation so we can
hopefully work toward that.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
I mean, you say that, Attorney Douglas, but I'm sure
you're aware of the statistics that show that black officers
kill and beat up black people even more than others.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
I do understand the argument, but I contend that there
has to be people of color in police agencies, assuming
for the sake of the argument, that you're going to
have police.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Agencies, right, Okay, given that right, given that predicate, right,
predication in a non abolition is correct. Viewpoint, Well, we
do have cops. You're saying we need more cops of color,
and I'm saying, okay, First of all, when you talk
about black cops, the data shows black cops kill and
and brutalize more. Maybe they're trying to prove something. And secondly,
(05:04):
when you look at LAPD specifically and the LA Sheriff's Department,
you've got a huge number of latinos on the force.
And I feel like a lot of the cases. I
haven't seen data on this, but a lot of the
cases that I'm tracking lately, you've got a Latino cop
beating or killing a black person.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Indeed, I have been in this space forty five years.
Shootings are one different category because people shoot on reaction,
and shootings, I agree, are colored or not. Color based. Beatings,
with rare exceptions, in my experience, has been racially based.
Rarely in forty five years have I confronted a circumstance
(05:43):
of a black officer striking repeatedly a black plaintiff, potential
or a black victim. Always the perpetrator of those abject
violent crimes are Latin, Asian or Caucasian. The shootings are
different because the circumstance requires split second action, then everybody's afraid.
(06:07):
But beatings I have found in what there are public
exceptions of car of course across the country, well heard about.
But beatings are different. Striking some with a billy club
is different. I rarely have encountered black officers who who
beat plaintiffs, and I often usually represent black plantiffs.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Wow, that's interesting. I hadn't looked at the breakdown in
that sense. Well, you've just had a rather humongous victory
in this specific area. When to talk about that case
and what it teaches us about the so called less
lethal I just think they need another name for that.
But whatever it is, and perhaps they shouldn't even be
authorized to use it at all. We'll ask that question.
(06:52):
We'll look at the case that you have had a
huge victory in just a couple days ago. All that
coming up on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty. Yes, indeed, and
you're waking up with Attorney Carl Douglas. Douglas Hicks is
your firm, and you guys just notched a big w
for when this past week or so, a three point
(07:16):
eight million dollars awards correct.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
The largest verdict against the city or the County of
Los Angeles arising out of the George Floyd protests that
occurred in May of twenty twenty. I'm proud of them.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Yeah, you should be. Wait, so out of all the
protests of twenty twenty, and there were a lot of
incidents within those protests, there.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Was never a case that either settled or had a
verdict higher than the two verdicts that I've gotten from
protest cases. Three point eight for my clients Chilling Gluck
and Caroline Gluck, and eighteen months ago three point seven
five million for a young brother, Jamal Shakir.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Right, so let's talk and they're both similar in terms
of this so called less lethal weaponry. Let's talk about
the Gluck situation since that was just recently.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Certainly Chellon Gluck is a sixty seven year old Japanese
and Caucasian director, a member of the Director's Guild of America.
He and his twenty three year old daughter and their
nineteen year old son agreed to go and march as
part of the George Floyd protests. He did not want
(08:33):
them to go. They were over eighteen and insisted on
going and said, Dad, if you want to watch out,
why don't you join us. He's a storyteller, so he
brings his camera with him. They meet at Pan Pacific Park.
It's a festive occasion. People are making signs, there's people
that are speaking. They're gathering all races, all ages, all colors.
(08:55):
They start walking down Third Street to Los Sienaca. They
walk got Locianca to Beverly. They walk back east and
they start seeing some cars that are burning. Long story short,
a couple hours later, they're at the intersection of Beverly
and stan Lee. There's a Jewish center at the northwest
corner of that intersection. There's a post office as well.
(09:18):
Over there. Mister Gluck is parked in a car. There's
a skirmish line of ch County deputies that are across Beverly.
He's hemmed in, nowhere to go. There's crowds of protesters
in the back of his car, his wife, his his
his m his daughter is in the front seat, his
son it's behind him. And he's basically as stuck. And
as a story teller, he wants to get out and
(09:40):
tell the story from both the protester's perspective and the
CoP's perspective as well. So he takes his camera and
starts shooting shorting of the other protesters, shooting pictures of
the of the cops as well. At one point, there's
the man he calls the smoking man, because this guy
has been smoking a cigarette the entire time and smoke
(10:00):
at the cumps. Starts walking back from the skirmish line,
and he's been struck. There's blood drawing down his face.
My client asks, hey, man, what happened? And he says,
they hit me in the face at point blank range.
As mister Gluck puts down his camera and looks towards
the coumps, he feels a finsensation in his nose that
(10:22):
he says is like getting hit with a cricket bat
or getting struck by a bust that strikes him in
the nose. It whips his head around, causing a whiplash
that he later has to get treated for. There is
a less than lethal projectile embedded in his nose. Six
weeks later, after many surgeries, they pull a plastic covering
(10:48):
from the projectile out of his nose. He suffers the
traumatic brain injury. His daughter watches in horror and she
is pulverized and injured as well. He has cognitive problems memory, laws, focus,
and concentration. He has emotional problems anxiety, PTSD, depression. He
(11:11):
now takes drugs every day of his life just to survive.
He will manage the symptoms from this injury for the
rest of his life. His life will never be the same.
Three point eight million dollars is not enough for what
he and his family are going through.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
So a jury agreed with you.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
There was a jury trial. It was divided in two
phases because and one of the lessons in this, and
the concern for all Angelinos, is the county, after all
of their investigation, could not identify who the officer was.
Would they were unable to identify? And I don't know
(11:57):
what the motives are, but the circumstances were they could
not identify the person whose picture we had from the
back with identifying numbers on his helmet, of who the
shooter was. That sounds terribly concerning. It's terribly concerted.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
How was it an identifying number if it doesn't identify
the persons?
Speaker 2 (12:19):
It identifies the squad and the platoon, but not the
individual from the rear. There was a four slash four.
He's in the fourth platoon, in the fourth one. But
there's sixteen people on the squad, so they could not
identify or they did not.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Right because everyone on that of those sixteen people knew
who it was.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Correct. But the concern is they had a trial. The
jury awarded three point eight million dollars fifty percent of
what I asked for, and we still don't know the
person who was responsible for firing the weapon. Three of
the four officers who testified have received promotion. Since that day,
(12:57):
no one has been held accountable, and that's a frightening thought.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
No one held accountable except the taxpayers are going to
pay that three point eight million. And I know that's
county as opposed to city, but both the city and
the County of Los Angeles have huge budget deficits right now.
And if you look at I mean, you know, the
money that's coming out for these liability settlements is just
(13:23):
well control. According to Controller Mahea, it's a billion dollars
in the past ten years.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
So what has to happen is the county and the
city have to do better.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
And that's just the city that's not counting. So what
does do better mean? What does that look like?
Speaker 2 (13:38):
There has to be accountability so that officers are held
accountable for failing to follow their.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Training, meaning personally accountable, meaning they need.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
To Certainly there needs to be an exploration of ways
to hold them more accountable so that we can hopefully
reach a day when we don't need Carl Douglas receiving
three point eight million on a verdict. Although I'll keep
doing until they stopped paying me.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Well, yeah, of course you will. But the thing about
it is I feel like unless there's some financial life.
I know, the average officer doesn't have three point eight million,
so the county or the city, the taxpayer is always
going to be on the hook. But I feel like
if they had some personal liability, some skin in the
game financially, maybe they would be they would think more
(14:28):
before they did that stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Well, that's where the failure to identify the officers is
even more tragic in the Chilling Gluck case, because we
had to sue the county, but we had to dismiss
any individuals because we learned through the course of our
investigation that they were not the ones most likely responsible.
(14:51):
But the person that was responsible no one on either
side has to this day been able to identify, so
it's difficult holding them accountable. There are ways, with something
that's called punitive damages to hold individuals officers responsible, but
that is so fleeting, so rare. It happened so little
in a practical sense that there's no meaningful manner.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
It happens so rarely because of qualified immunity, because of
public attitudes, because cops really get even taken to court
for anything, because why.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Because jurors refuse to hold them accountable personally. Cops are
the last level of protection between us and them. That's
why the cell and blood case is so important. Forty
five years I've been suing police officers for acts of misconduct.
This is the first time in forty five years I've
ever had a trial where the client, the plaintiff, was
(15:48):
not black or brown. The plaintiff was an Asian American,
Caucasian white person. The plaintiffs looked white, and usually when
America looked at these cases, it's always them some black
kid who wasn't doing something, some brown kid who wasn't
doing something he's supposed to do. This is someone that
shows police misconduct can impact all of us. The George
(16:11):
Floyd protests were unique because the Crowns were all multiracial.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Yeah, they were everybody or everybody out there. But the
thing about it is, why are you saying legally this
is significant? I mean, as a lay person looking at it,
their response feels like, well, Okay, the person's not black,
so they're going to give them account. They're going to
give them the benefit of the doubt and pay them
for their injury. If that person was black, they probably
(16:38):
wouldn't have gotten the same result.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
That is very possibly true. But now we all have
skin in the game. That's my point. We all have
skin in the game. White folks can be injured too,
So white folks have skin in the game to make
sure that our police are responsible, that they follow their
training because there's no connection and own when there is
(17:01):
a connection. You can see a picture in La Times
this morning of my clients who look like many of
the readers, So that connection hopefully can get others involved.
Because they lived in Palisades, they lost their house in
the fire, they were politically active, the children are. They
did this because they thought it was the right thing
(17:23):
to do, and that story I'm trying to tell so
that more people can get involved, to make a difference
and make a change.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Well, in contrast that with your earlier case.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Against the city. Yeah, he was the nicest young man
I've ever had as a client in a police misconduct case.
Jamal Shakir was in his early twenties. He is a
young filmmaker and he was filming during the protests and
he sees someone across the other side wearing a uniform
(17:56):
that he recognized. It was his uncle, Eric Ham, And
we alleged that Eric Anderson directed a shooter to target
Jamal Shakir. As he filmed, he shot his hand and
he drops the camera that he's filming with, and when
he bends over to pick up the camera, he shot
again in the buttocks. We said that was targeted. The
jury disagreed. We only won on another claim of negligence,
(18:23):
that the officers fired a weapon and injured him. The
reason he got so much because he cannot use his
hands the same way and he was going to live
fifty five point one more years, and the jury decided
to give him money for fifty five point one more
years of future.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
That's like an estimate, this is how long the stu
I will likely live. And so they paid him for
those fifty five years of not being able to use
that hand.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
But even then the jury spit was nine to three.
We almost lost that case. We lost the case against
the uncle, accusing him of being the one who directed
the officers to shoot my client. Though he was shot twice,
the jurors did not conclude that the shooting was intentional
and targeted. That's how tough it is just to have
(19:12):
these kinds of case.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
And this is again less lethal supposed less.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Lethal to people whose lives will be shattered and impacted
for the rest of their lives. Jamal Shakir cannot hold
those thirty seven pound cameras anymore and do his own filming.
He has to hire somebody now because his fingers don't
work the same way anymore.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Do I mean, maybe it's apples to oranges, But given
what you were just saying about the Gluck case giving
people that aren't black skin in the game, does the
Jamal Shakir case show how difficult more how much more
difficult it is if you are black in that system.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Indeed, because I feel the Glucks were given the benefit
of the doubt, the vote for Weather the use of
force was unreasonable was eleven to one. I've never had
eleven to one in my favor. For Carolina it was twelve. Oh.
I've never had twelve oh in my favorite. When it's
(20:13):
a black plaintiff, it's a terrible indictment on our system.
It's a terrible indictment on this life that I've been
trying to make better for the last forty five years
of my life. But regrettably, race does matter, I argue,
at least in Los Angeles, and you will ignore that
to your.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Peril, ignoring it to your peril. Sixty seconds to news,
traffic and sports right here, and I'm gonna figure that
that's another reason why we need to sit on jury's.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Absolutely, whenever I come on your show, I encourage your
listeners to register to vote when that jury summons comes,
Please don't just hide it in the magazine stack and
throw it in the track. Come because in jury Black
people have power. We have power on juries. We bring
(21:07):
a perspective that needs to be heard. I am passionate
about the importance of people of color, all colors, all
walks of life to serve on juries. It will be
a fascinating experience that you'll enjoy, but you have power.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
It'll be a fascinating experience, especially if you get a
Douglas Hicks case and you get to watch these guys,
watch these guys work. We've got news, traffic and sports,
and then we're gonna continue this conversation with Attorney Douglas.
You're invited in on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty and Attorney
Carl Douglas is here. We're talking about less lethal force.
(21:46):
Just want a big case. The Gluck case, A three
point eight million going there. Now. I'm reading that they
they're taking it down because I didn't really understand it.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Sure short, because they were unable to identify the shooter,
we could not allege an intentional tort that mister Gluck
was intentionally struck, so we had to say it was negligent.
They were beyond their training. They should never have struck
(22:20):
mister Gluck. He was doing nothing wrong, and they admitted
to that. To their credit. Whenever you allege negligence, though,
there's something that's called up, what's the comparative responsibility of
the people. Here we go, and the jury found that
mister Gluck himself was twenty percent responsible for getting out
of his car, and that the protesting crowd was fifteen
(22:43):
percent responsible for his injury. So the county only has
to pay sixty five percent of that total verdict, a
total of two point four to seven million dollars, which
is still more than any city or count he has
ever paid a rising out of the George Floyd death protests,
(23:04):
and there have been hundreds of cases since then, we.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Have I think it's an injunction at this point by
a judge towards this is not counting. This is City,
the police LAPD in their use of less lethal weaponry
against journalists. Yes, trying to cover ICE, and journalists have
been shot, They've been bloody, they've been injured. But it
(23:27):
seems that the department doesn't really follow the judges directive.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
It appears that way, and I'm interested to see how
the judge will respond. There have been a lot of
high profile and clearly misuse of less lethals I can recall,
and it seems to be malicious that, knowing they are journalists,
shooting them with their backs turned. It's really horrific, and
(23:58):
these projectiles can cause serious, serious injury. I've been speaking
to a lawyer who represents a client whose eye was
blinded from projectile. There was a case in San Diego
of an old sister who received a ten million dollar
settlement because she was blinded by these quote less lethal projectiles.
(24:22):
So these are serious things. Given what happened over the
summer with the ICE raids, you see how blatantly and
indiscriminately they can often be used.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
I mean, the crazy thing is we're stressed out about
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI
and all these National Guard, the Marines, invading our city
and occupying our city. But when you look at those protests,
it is true that the people that are beating up
journalists and protesters with batons and firing those rubber bullets
(24:58):
at them are not They are local law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Correct. The National Guard doesn't have les lethos that they
use in cities. They are all local law enforcement agencies,
the LAPD, the county shriffes, and they have different weapons
that they use as well.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
So this is an US problem. This temporary restraining order
was put up in July. We're not talking about ancient
history now, but these cases continue. So you said, it'll
be interesting to see what a judge does, meaning what
options would they have.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
There has been such a thumbing of your nose at
the role of judiciary, in part because of the abuses
of the president in Washington, that the respect for the
rule of law is really being challenged. And I'm interested
(25:49):
to see how strong the judge will enforce and punish
this clear violation of the judges directive.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
I mean, but what how do you enforce and punish
if you're a judge, you don't have your own police force,
you don't I mean, I guess you can jail people,
but you can't jail a whole department.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Money talks, and you can impose fines or other kinds
of sanctions. And I have seen dominate money and the
payment of money being used to change the way law
enforcement acts. I remind everyone there used to be a
time when brothers and latins were choked out by the
(26:34):
choke hold right, and the LAPD chief Darryl Gates said
it was just something about the structure of the neck
of a black person, why they have a particular proclivity
to die from a choke hold. Because working in Johnny
Cockin's office worked on cases where it began costing the
city too much money to pay the choke hold cases.
(26:57):
James Bency was one of the cases that happened that
they changed the policy and no longer do they kill
black people with chokeholds. Fortunately, there's a technique that happens
where labed will use a taser and hold it against
the body, which is called a drive stun mode. I
(27:18):
represent Keenan Anderson January, the third of twenty twenty three,
who was tased in a drive stun mode. It was
videotaped and now because of the outrage from his death
and the anticipated payment that they would have to pay
to his seven year old son. The LAPD no longer
uses that drive stun mode technique.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
They're not supposed to.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Well, so they haven't since then at least.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Okay, well, that's something to me. The fact that a
judge has to issue a temporary restraining order to forbid
officers from quote I'm quoting the La Times here, intentionally
assaulting a journalist who is carrying who's gathering information at
a protest, or that they're not allowed to stop journalists
from going into protest areas that have been closed off
(28:06):
to the public. The fact that a judge has to
tell that to a police department is the whole problem for.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Sure, for sure, And the fact that officers don't have
an abiding obligation to follow that order and will still
do what they think has to be done in the
moment is the greater problem.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Abiding obligation meaning that I mean, they're going to do
whatever they want basically, is what you're saying, and lawyers speak.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
In the moment, In the moment, they're going to do
what they want to do and worry about it later
and have no accountability. Basically, that's the problem as well.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Can we ban less lethal weapons?
Speaker 2 (28:40):
I mean what, No, there is not the political will
to limit policing because the majority community is still considers
the police the last protection between us and them.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Back to what you were saying about this Gluck case, correct,
which is, you know, showing the disparities between the way
victims in the court system are viewed correct by juries.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Correct. And so look at the picture in today's LA Times.
He looks like most of LA And if it can
happen to him, it can happen to you. We are
more connected than you believe.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
So you talked about the MINSI case and other cases
that got Darrel Gates, the notorious police chief at that
time of the LAPD to bam a choke hold.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
It keeps me going because I've seen benefits from what
I do a civil rights lawyer, making change for all
of us, and that keeps me going.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
So, but you don't have hope that we can limit
these non supposedly less lethal weapons. You feel like the
political will is there just to see a repeat of
what happened with the choke hold because these are expensive.
This right here, these two cases, your two cases alone
is like seven million dollar.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Indeed, indeed, the power that be will take the position
that there's casualties in every war. Cops always say, 'tims
better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
That's just the way it is. I wish they would
put me out of business, mister Primer. They won't. They
(30:21):
never will. Regrettably, they never will.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Yeah, I mean, I get they won't put you out
of business. But we're talking about the impact of what
you've done. And I remember last year we had I
don't I don't remember it detail for detail, but I
do remember the conversation about what types of less lethal
ammunition the cops could use, and there was some limiting
(30:45):
of certain types that were considered more likely to injure,
and that gave me hope. Well, just like I think
we should ban high speed chases, which cops should not
be chasing people through the streets. You can follow them
with a helicopter, have drones. There are cameras everywhere. They're
gonna run out of gas. Why are you endangering civilian lives.
It's the same kind of thing with this less lethal
(31:08):
weaponry for me, because most of the time the tape
I see, you could have contained that crowd. You could
have contained that human or those three humans without doing that,
without endangering their lives.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
You have a progressive eye and you see things differently
than most regrettably, what many see is cheer chaos. There's
tear gas, people throwing tear gas back at the cops.
They have shields, they're throwing bottles, they're throwing locks, they're
throwing concrete chunks, and we need these police to keep
us Safe's I wish it wasn't that way, but that's
(31:43):
that's the way it is. Regrettably, so.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Are you what is the solution when it comes to
or what is the not even solution progress when it
comes to less lethal weapons? Just we just have to
keep getting shot by rubber bullets, poked by batons, whether
we're journalists or people exercising our right to protest.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Until enough of us care. It's only the squeaky wheel
that gets any oil, and until enough of us care.
That the politicians want to change. They have made some
modifications on using less lethals and having them directly targeted,
but so long as there continues to be occasions when
(32:30):
the public believes some response is necessary to quell the outrage,
to quell the masses, to quail the protests, there will
never be an elimination of less lethos. I don't think.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Morris says that's why he says, that's why I protest
solo beautiful materials, but solo protesting makes it difficult to
harass me. I've been warned by security experts that I
should stop going to protest by myself, because you need
to have a witness to whatever happens to you doesn't
happen to you, especially in ice protests, where they can
kidnap you, take you into custody and no one may
(33:05):
know where you went or even what agency took. You'd
be nice to have a witness to tell your family
what happened to you.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I understand the advice wholeheartedly. I understand the advice because
it's difficult. There was not an independent witness in mister
Gluck's case that we were able to identify who said, yeah,
I saw what happened, and what he what happened was wrong.
So I get the advice.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
Talking with Attorney Carl Douglas less lethal weapons, it's the
conversation and the case he just won against the county
three point eight million and it you know, life changing injuries,
but less lethal nonetheless, because your clients are still living
to testify. Continuing this conversation, when we come forward on
(33:51):
KBLA fifteen eighty, Attorney Carl Douglas is here, we're talking
less lethal weaponry. And congratulations to Douglas Hickson your big
victory here in this Glock case. But also you know
Jamal shake Care case. Even though you didn't get the
total result you wanted, he still walked away with over
three million in that case. But they're asking in the
(34:15):
chat about qualified immunity, journalists don't have qualified immunity right.
Qualified immunity is a legal principle that applies to government officials.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
And protects police officers from being sued. It's a federal
concept that is controlled by federal laws, which is one
reason why ninety percent of my cases are filed in
state court because there is no qualified immunity. But it
allows a shield for police officers to be protected against
(34:45):
lawsuits when there is a uniqueness about that particular circumstance
that officers could not have known their conduct was illegal.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
So I mean, that's another aspect to why, at least
federally we wouldn't we wouldn't see accountability for cops in
these less lethal cases. And doesn't that qualified immunity patina
the vibe if you will translate to juries in any jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
I mean, well, federal courts are different than state courts.
In California, we're lucky because the state court system affords
a healthy civil rights law. So litigans have the right
in California in state court to seek attorney fees and
many of the same kinds of damages that are limited
in federal courts Across the nation, Federal juries tend to
(35:34):
be more conservative than state jurys. The processes are different
than laws are different, so most civil rights lawries file
their cases in state. In federal court, I prefer, and
we had Douglas at law, but first state court.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
That makes sense. So it's not just the attitude of
the jury or the likeliness to convict, but also the
rules and regulations about what you can recover.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
And what they can ask for, and the jurisdiction. The
Central District of California goes from the Orange County line
to Riverside to San Luis Obispo, as opposed to twenty
miles from the courthouse for state court cases. So I'd
rather have cases where there's a more concentrated pool of jurors.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
That look like mer jurors that are actually connected to
the region where the incident is indeed is unfolding that
qualified immunity technically also could apply to other government workers.
I know Congresswoman i On Presley has a bill and
qualified immunity which black lives matter, and just as families
(36:34):
are working to try to pass highly unlikely in this administration.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
I've been kind calling it highly unlikely, impossible, impossible.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Under this administration or any administration.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Impossible until trump Ism is in the background of our memories.
So a change in administration will not change the tenor
to allow for the elimination of qualified immunity, because there's
(37:06):
not the political will to limit the scope of police
officers doing policing that protects us from them.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
It's astounding to me because the number of police of
black people and all people killed by police has not
slowed down since twenty twenty. In fact, it's increased every year.
Just because you're not tracking it, just because it's not
in the headlines, it doesn't mean that it's gone away.
And but yet we don't have the political will I mean, isn't.
(37:38):
It's just a matter of time of normalizing the change.
There was probably a time when you didn't think they
would ever outlaw chokeholds.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Indeed, so I never say never, But it's not gonna
be anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
Not gonna be any time soon. I don't know. For
those of us who like to go to protests because
we think it's the right thing to do. You know,
what advice would you gives, as you know, as a lawyer,
in terms of dealing with you know, leslie the weaponry.
(38:12):
What I've seen and what I've heard from folks I
know is that that are protesting now, is that there's
less warning and the possibility that you won't get any
warning at all before you're fired on to your guests
or you know, taken down with so called non lethal force.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Advice is always difficult because on one hand, I'm a
strong believer in the value and the beauty of protesting,
and I'm a strong proponent of the First Amendment. On
the other hand, I see it after the carnage. I
see how the lies are impacted, I see how the
misery is inflicted, and I see the loss of accountability
(38:53):
and how bad that is for our society. But I
cannot say anything to discourage someone to peacefully protest their
beliefs and their interests, but be mindful of their surroundings,
be mindful that things can change in a minute, and
what might be peaceful in one minute might turn tragically
violent the next.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Right, So you're saying, what is reporters privileged? Reporters don't
really have privilege. What we have is access. And many
of those journalists that were targeted by cops have a
press pass which is issued by the LAPD. Mine is expired,
but I do have one. You have to go down there,
you have to be fingerprinted, you've got to talk to
(39:36):
the cop that's over that, they take your picture with
their little camera, and they give you weeks later a
laminated press pass, which means you are in their system.
That's not a privilege, but it's meant to grant you
access to crime scenes and protest scenes so that you
could report on what's happening. And that's a violation of
our ability to do our job.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Because the police, I don't want the journalists there watching
as they do what they do, out of fear that
they will report when they do something wrong and that
will rise political anger, public anger against them. So the
officers emotionally reacting, do not want the journalists there reporting
(40:19):
on what they are doing because they're often doing wrong.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
Yeah, that's which is why we need to be there
exactly the eyes and ears of the public. And this
is not supposed to be Gaza where they're just killing journalists,
mowing them down like nothing. We've got sixty seconds here,
Attorney Douglas, what would you like to leave us with.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
I always talk and we talked about it here today
about the importance of people of all people, all your listeners,
being involved in the jury system. Black people have power
on jurors and that power is palpable, and taking part
in our justice system is something that I always encourage
and implore your listeners and all listeners to take part.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yep, I wish we could make it, you know. I
wish we could eat level the playing field so that
folks would be able to replace their wages when they
were on juries. But I you know, I know you're
right if we don't show up.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
And it's a fascinating experience, That's what I keep telling
It's a fascinating experience.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
At tourney. Carl Douglas, as always, it's a pleasure to
talk with you. Thanks so much for coming in.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
Please have me back. I love your show. I love
you and your show.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
I appreciate that so much to have a Smiley's Show
is up next. He's got another jam packed, jam packed
episode for you. And thank you for taking part in
our inaugural think tank Thursday. That's what we call our Thursdays. Now,
don't forget to tap in. What's your what is your
social media?
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Sure ced dot E s q C ed Carl E.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
Douglas eschoire and you can find me at the Premia Radio.
We are at KBLA fifteen eighty. Everywhere, please like, follow, subscribe,
and make smart ass comments like my mama, the late
Great Diana Prima used to say, history is now. Like
I always say, we're making it together. Until tomorrow, Be safe,
(42:11):
be informed, One Love
He's in the studio, one of your favorite attorneys. He's
in private practice at Douglas Hicks Law in Los Angeles.
He was try a Lawyer of the Year for two
thousand and six by the Consumer Attorneys Association with Los
Angeles's former managing attorney at the law offices of Johnny L.
Cochran Junior, where he worked for over eleven years until
he started his own practice back in ninety eight. He
(00:24):
was successful and his work as coordinator of OJ Simpson's
Criminal Defense Team aka the Dream Team. A frequent commentator
on all the national news shows, but he always makes
time for the black owned ones as well. Attorney Carl Douglas,
Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
My sister. It is always a gracious pleasure being in
your presence. Thank you for having me today.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Yeah, thanks for coming in. I mean we've talked about
this before in passing because of other cases that you
have had, and just because of the ongoing conversation here
in Los Angeles where we're broadcasting from about the way
something called less lethal forms of weaponry are used by
law enforcement. It's become an issue of late with the
(01:14):
ice rays and the treatment of journalists, but it's an
issue that you've been dealing with over the years. I mean,
what is less lethal? It means you'll be less dead.
How do they what's a legal characterization of that?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
It is really a misnomer, a misconception, because though it
is indeed called less lethal less than lethal projectiles, even
the trainers train their law enforcement officers that they are
capable of causing serious injury or death when they are
struck by someone above the shoulders. They're designed not to
(01:48):
strike someone in the growing, but they're designed for what's
called area dispersal, to compel a protester to leave an
area that he should not be, either because he's trying
to throw back a canister of tear gas or go
to an area that is that is unwanted by the police.
But they are projectiles. Different agencies have different kinds. The
(02:10):
LAPD has one type. The county the case that I
was in most recently had a different type.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So that's the county that's there, sheriffs. Yeah, yes, so
they have They just designate it as such. It's it's
not like a legal category. They just say this is
less lethal because it doesn't have traditional bullets.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yes, they are projectiles that sting and they typically do
not cause death unless it is targeted at an improper area,
which is above the shoulders, and in fact, the training
says you only target someone above the shoulders if it
includes a deadly forced circumstance, because those weapons are indeed
capable of causing death.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
And so my understanding was that the some of the police,
say agencies, particularly LAPD I don't know about the sheriff,
had changed their policy in regard to the use of
less lethal weaponry, meaning they're not supposed to use it
as readily correct.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
The problem is that law enforcement officers often react because
they are afraid. Though they are trained to act in
a certain way, you can't duplicate the stress, the chaos
of a live protest circumstance that they often confront in
Los Angeles, on the streets of Los Angeles, because oftentimes
(03:36):
the protesters do not look like them, they don't have
a sense of humanity towards them, and they simply fire
because they are often afraid.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
But I mean, there is no there's no training in
the world that will teach you to see someone as
a human being or a colleague if you don't see
them as such.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Indeed, but when the object of your enforcement does not
look like your brother or your uncle, or your daddy,
or your granddad or your neighbor. There is a greater disconnect.
I contend that's why it's so important that people of
color join police agencies across the nation so we can
hopefully work toward that.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
I mean, you say that, Attorney Douglas, but I'm sure
you're aware of the statistics that show that black officers
kill and beat up black people even more than others.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
I do understand the argument, but I contend that there
has to be people of color in police agencies, assuming
for the sake of the argument, that you're going to
have police.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Agencies, right, Okay, given that right, given that predicate, right,
predication in a non abolition is correct. Viewpoint, Well, we
do have cops. You're saying we need more cops of color,
and I'm saying, okay, First of all, when you talk
about black cops, the data shows black cops kill and
and brutalize more. Maybe they're trying to prove something. And secondly,
(05:04):
when you look at LAPD specifically and the LA Sheriff's Department,
you've got a huge number of latinos on the force.
And I feel like a lot of the cases. I
haven't seen data on this, but a lot of the
cases that I'm tracking lately, you've got a Latino cop
beating or killing a black person.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Indeed, I have been in this space forty five years.
Shootings are one different category because people shoot on reaction,
and shootings, I agree, are colored or not. Color based. Beatings,
with rare exceptions, in my experience, has been racially based.
Rarely in forty five years have I confronted a circumstance
(05:43):
of a black officer striking repeatedly a black plaintiff, potential
or a black victim. Always the perpetrator of those abject
violent crimes are Latin, Asian or Caucasian. The shootings are
different because the circumstance requires split second action, then everybody's afraid.
(06:07):
But beatings I have found in what there are public
exceptions of car of course across the country, well heard about.
But beatings are different. Striking some with a billy club
is different. I rarely have encountered black officers who who
beat plaintiffs, and I often usually represent black plantiffs.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Wow, that's interesting. I hadn't looked at the breakdown in
that sense. Well, you've just had a rather humongous victory
in this specific area. When to talk about that case
and what it teaches us about the so called less
lethal I just think they need another name for that.
But whatever it is, and perhaps they shouldn't even be
authorized to use it at all. We'll ask that question.
(06:52):
We'll look at the case that you have had a
huge victory in just a couple days ago. All that
coming up on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty. Yes, indeed, and
you're waking up with Attorney Carl Douglas. Douglas Hicks is
your firm, and you guys just notched a big w
for when this past week or so, a three point
(07:16):
eight million dollars awards correct.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
The largest verdict against the city or the County of
Los Angeles arising out of the George Floyd protests that
occurred in May of twenty twenty. I'm proud of them.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Yeah, you should be. Wait, so out of all the
protests of twenty twenty, and there were a lot of
incidents within those protests, there.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Was never a case that either settled or had a
verdict higher than the two verdicts that I've gotten from
protest cases. Three point eight for my clients Chilling Gluck
and Caroline Gluck, and eighteen months ago three point seven
five million for a young brother, Jamal Shakir.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Right, so let's talk and they're both similar in terms
of this so called less lethal weaponry. Let's talk about
the Gluck situation since that was just recently.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Certainly Chellon Gluck is a sixty seven year old Japanese
and Caucasian director, a member of the Director's Guild of America.
He and his twenty three year old daughter and their
nineteen year old son agreed to go and march as
part of the George Floyd protests. He did not want
(08:33):
them to go. They were over eighteen and insisted on
going and said, Dad, if you want to watch out,
why don't you join us. He's a storyteller, so he
brings his camera with him. They meet at Pan Pacific Park.
It's a festive occasion. People are making signs, there's people
that are speaking. They're gathering all races, all ages, all colors.
(08:55):
They start walking down Third Street to Los Sienaca. They
walk got Locianca to Beverly. They walk back east and
they start seeing some cars that are burning. Long story short,
a couple hours later, they're at the intersection of Beverly
and stan Lee. There's a Jewish center at the northwest
corner of that intersection. There's a post office as well.
(09:18):
Over there. Mister Gluck is parked in a car. There's
a skirmish line of ch County deputies that are across Beverly.
He's hemmed in, nowhere to go. There's crowds of protesters
in the back of his car, his wife, his his
his m his daughter is in the front seat, his
son it's behind him. And he's basically as stuck. And
as a story teller, he wants to get out and
(09:40):
tell the story from both the protester's perspective and the
CoP's perspective as well. So he takes his camera and
starts shooting shorting of the other protesters, shooting pictures of
the of the cops as well. At one point, there's
the man he calls the smoking man, because this guy
has been smoking a cigarette the entire time and smoke
(10:00):
at the cumps. Starts walking back from the skirmish line,
and he's been struck. There's blood drawing down his face.
My client asks, hey, man, what happened? And he says,
they hit me in the face at point blank range.
As mister Gluck puts down his camera and looks towards
the coumps, he feels a finsensation in his nose that
(10:22):
he says is like getting hit with a cricket bat
or getting struck by a bust that strikes him in
the nose. It whips his head around, causing a whiplash
that he later has to get treated for. There is
a less than lethal projectile embedded in his nose. Six
weeks later, after many surgeries, they pull a plastic covering
(10:48):
from the projectile out of his nose. He suffers the
traumatic brain injury. His daughter watches in horror and she
is pulverized and injured as well. He has cognitive problems memory, laws, focus,
and concentration. He has emotional problems anxiety, PTSD, depression. He
(11:11):
now takes drugs every day of his life just to survive.
He will manage the symptoms from this injury for the
rest of his life. His life will never be the same.
Three point eight million dollars is not enough for what
he and his family are going through.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
So a jury agreed with you.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
There was a jury trial. It was divided in two
phases because and one of the lessons in this, and
the concern for all Angelinos, is the county, after all
of their investigation, could not identify who the officer was.
Would they were unable to identify? And I don't know
(11:57):
what the motives are, but the circumstances were they could
not identify the person whose picture we had from the
back with identifying numbers on his helmet, of who the
shooter was. That sounds terribly concerning. It's terribly concerted.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
How was it an identifying number if it doesn't identify
the persons?
Speaker 2 (12:19):
It identifies the squad and the platoon, but not the
individual from the rear. There was a four slash four.
He's in the fourth platoon, in the fourth one. But
there's sixteen people on the squad, so they could not
identify or they did not.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Right because everyone on that of those sixteen people knew
who it was.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Correct. But the concern is they had a trial. The
jury awarded three point eight million dollars fifty percent of
what I asked for, and we still don't know the
person who was responsible for firing the weapon. Three of
the four officers who testified have received promotion. Since that day,
(12:57):
no one has been held accountable, and that's a frightening thought.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
No one held accountable except the taxpayers are going to
pay that three point eight million. And I know that's
county as opposed to city, but both the city and
the County of Los Angeles have huge budget deficits right now.
And if you look at I mean, you know, the
money that's coming out for these liability settlements is just
(13:23):
well control. According to Controller Mahea, it's a billion dollars
in the past ten years.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
So what has to happen is the county and the
city have to do better.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
And that's just the city that's not counting. So what
does do better mean? What does that look like?
Speaker 2 (13:38):
There has to be accountability so that officers are held
accountable for failing to follow their.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Training, meaning personally accountable, meaning they need.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
To Certainly there needs to be an exploration of ways
to hold them more accountable so that we can hopefully
reach a day when we don't need Carl Douglas receiving
three point eight million on a verdict. Although I'll keep
doing until they stopped paying me.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Well, yeah, of course you will. But the thing about
it is I feel like unless there's some financial life.
I know, the average officer doesn't have three point eight million,
so the county or the city, the taxpayer is always
going to be on the hook. But I feel like
if they had some personal liability, some skin in the
game financially, maybe they would be they would think more
(14:28):
before they did that stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Well, that's where the failure to identify the officers is
even more tragic in the Chilling Gluck case, because we
had to sue the county, but we had to dismiss
any individuals because we learned through the course of our
investigation that they were not the ones most likely responsible.
(14:51):
But the person that was responsible no one on either
side has to this day been able to identify, so
it's difficult holding them accountable. There are ways, with something
that's called punitive damages to hold individuals officers responsible, but
that is so fleeting, so rare. It happened so little
in a practical sense that there's no meaningful manner.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
It happens so rarely because of qualified immunity, because of
public attitudes, because cops really get even taken to court
for anything, because why.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Because jurors refuse to hold them accountable personally. Cops are
the last level of protection between us and them. That's
why the cell and blood case is so important. Forty
five years I've been suing police officers for acts of misconduct.
This is the first time in forty five years I've
ever had a trial where the client, the plaintiff, was
(15:48):
not black or brown. The plaintiff was an Asian American,
Caucasian white person. The plaintiffs looked white, and usually when
America looked at these cases, it's always them some black
kid who wasn't doing something, some brown kid who wasn't
doing something he's supposed to do. This is someone that
shows police misconduct can impact all of us. The George
(16:11):
Floyd protests were unique because the Crowns were all multiracial.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Yeah, they were everybody or everybody out there. But the
thing about it is, why are you saying legally this
is significant? I mean, as a lay person looking at it,
their response feels like, well, Okay, the person's not black,
so they're going to give them account. They're going to
give them the benefit of the doubt and pay them
for their injury. If that person was black, they probably
(16:38):
wouldn't have gotten the same result.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
That is very possibly true. But now we all have
skin in the game. That's my point. We all have
skin in the game. White folks can be injured too,
So white folks have skin in the game to make
sure that our police are responsible, that they follow their
training because there's no connection and own when there is
(17:01):
a connection. You can see a picture in La Times
this morning of my clients who look like many of
the readers, So that connection hopefully can get others involved.
Because they lived in Palisades, they lost their house in
the fire, they were politically active, the children are. They
did this because they thought it was the right thing
(17:23):
to do, and that story I'm trying to tell so
that more people can get involved, to make a difference
and make a change.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Well, in contrast that with your earlier case.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Against the city. Yeah, he was the nicest young man
I've ever had as a client in a police misconduct case.
Jamal Shakir was in his early twenties. He is a
young filmmaker and he was filming during the protests and
he sees someone across the other side wearing a uniform
(17:56):
that he recognized. It was his uncle, Eric Ham, And
we alleged that Eric Anderson directed a shooter to target
Jamal Shakir. As he filmed, he shot his hand and
he drops the camera that he's filming with, and when
he bends over to pick up the camera, he shot
again in the buttocks. We said that was targeted. The
jury disagreed. We only won on another claim of negligence,
(18:23):
that the officers fired a weapon and injured him. The
reason he got so much because he cannot use his
hands the same way and he was going to live
fifty five point one more years, and the jury decided
to give him money for fifty five point one more
years of future.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
That's like an estimate, this is how long the stu
I will likely live. And so they paid him for
those fifty five years of not being able to use
that hand.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
But even then the jury spit was nine to three.
We almost lost that case. We lost the case against
the uncle, accusing him of being the one who directed
the officers to shoot my client. Though he was shot twice,
the jurors did not conclude that the shooting was intentional
and targeted. That's how tough it is just to have
(19:12):
these kinds of case.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
And this is again less lethal supposed less.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Lethal to people whose lives will be shattered and impacted
for the rest of their lives. Jamal Shakir cannot hold
those thirty seven pound cameras anymore and do his own filming.
He has to hire somebody now because his fingers don't
work the same way anymore.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Do I mean, maybe it's apples to oranges, But given
what you were just saying about the Gluck case giving
people that aren't black skin in the game, does the
Jamal Shakir case show how difficult more how much more
difficult it is if you are black in that system.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Indeed, because I feel the Glucks were given the benefit
of the doubt, the vote for Weather the use of
force was unreasonable was eleven to one. I've never had
eleven to one in my favor. For Carolina it was twelve. Oh.
I've never had twelve oh in my favorite. When it's
(20:13):
a black plaintiff, it's a terrible indictment on our system.
It's a terrible indictment on this life that I've been
trying to make better for the last forty five years
of my life. But regrettably, race does matter, I argue,
at least in Los Angeles, and you will ignore that
to your.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Peril, ignoring it to your peril. Sixty seconds to news,
traffic and sports right here, and I'm gonna figure that
that's another reason why we need to sit on jury's.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Absolutely, whenever I come on your show, I encourage your
listeners to register to vote when that jury summons comes,
Please don't just hide it in the magazine stack and
throw it in the track. Come because in jury Black
people have power. We have power on juries. We bring
(21:07):
a perspective that needs to be heard. I am passionate
about the importance of people of color, all colors, all
walks of life to serve on juries. It will be
a fascinating experience that you'll enjoy, but you have power.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
It'll be a fascinating experience, especially if you get a
Douglas Hicks case and you get to watch these guys,
watch these guys work. We've got news, traffic and sports,
and then we're gonna continue this conversation with Attorney Douglas.
You're invited in on KBLA Talk fifteen eighty and Attorney
Carl Douglas is here. We're talking about less lethal force.
(21:46):
Just want a big case. The Gluck case, A three
point eight million going there. Now. I'm reading that they
they're taking it down because I didn't really understand it.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Sure short, because they were unable to identify the shooter,
we could not allege an intentional tort that mister Gluck
was intentionally struck, so we had to say it was negligent.
They were beyond their training. They should never have struck
(22:20):
mister Gluck. He was doing nothing wrong, and they admitted
to that. To their credit. Whenever you allege negligence, though,
there's something that's called up, what's the comparative responsibility of
the people. Here we go, and the jury found that
mister Gluck himself was twenty percent responsible for getting out
of his car, and that the protesting crowd was fifteen
(22:43):
percent responsible for his injury. So the county only has
to pay sixty five percent of that total verdict, a
total of two point four to seven million dollars, which
is still more than any city or count he has
ever paid a rising out of the George Floyd death protests,
(23:04):
and there have been hundreds of cases since then, we.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Have I think it's an injunction at this point by
a judge towards this is not counting. This is City,
the police LAPD in their use of less lethal weaponry
against journalists. Yes, trying to cover ICE, and journalists have
been shot, They've been bloody, they've been injured. But it
(23:27):
seems that the department doesn't really follow the judges directive.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
It appears that way, and I'm interested to see how
the judge will respond. There have been a lot of
high profile and clearly misuse of less lethals I can recall,
and it seems to be malicious that, knowing they are journalists,
shooting them with their backs turned. It's really horrific, and
(23:58):
these projectiles can cause serious, serious injury. I've been speaking
to a lawyer who represents a client whose eye was
blinded from projectile. There was a case in San Diego
of an old sister who received a ten million dollar
settlement because she was blinded by these quote less lethal projectiles.
(24:22):
So these are serious things. Given what happened over the
summer with the ICE raids, you see how blatantly and
indiscriminately they can often be used.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
I mean, the crazy thing is we're stressed out about
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI
and all these National Guard, the Marines, invading our city
and occupying our city. But when you look at those protests,
it is true that the people that are beating up
journalists and protesters with batons and firing those rubber bullets
(24:58):
at them are not They are local law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Correct. The National Guard doesn't have les lethos that they
use in cities. They are all local law enforcement agencies,
the LAPD, the county shriffes, and they have different weapons
that they use as well.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
So this is an US problem. This temporary restraining order
was put up in July. We're not talking about ancient
history now, but these cases continue. So you said, it'll
be interesting to see what a judge does, meaning what
options would they have.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
There has been such a thumbing of your nose at
the role of judiciary, in part because of the abuses
of the president in Washington, that the respect for the
rule of law is really being challenged. And I'm interested
(25:49):
to see how strong the judge will enforce and punish
this clear violation of the judges directive.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
I mean, but what how do you enforce and punish
if you're a judge, you don't have your own police force,
you don't I mean, I guess you can jail people,
but you can't jail a whole department.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
Money talks, and you can impose fines or other kinds
of sanctions. And I have seen dominate money and the
payment of money being used to change the way law
enforcement acts. I remind everyone there used to be a
time when brothers and latins were choked out by the
(26:34):
choke hold right, and the LAPD chief Darryl Gates said
it was just something about the structure of the neck
of a black person, why they have a particular proclivity
to die from a choke hold. Because working in Johnny
Cockin's office worked on cases where it began costing the
city too much money to pay the choke hold cases.
(26:57):
James Bency was one of the cases that happened that
they changed the policy and no longer do they kill
black people with chokeholds. Fortunately, there's a technique that happens
where labed will use a taser and hold it against
the body, which is called a drive stun mode. I
(27:18):
represent Keenan Anderson January, the third of twenty twenty three,
who was tased in a drive stun mode. It was
videotaped and now because of the outrage from his death
and the anticipated payment that they would have to pay
to his seven year old son. The LAPD no longer
uses that drive stun mode technique.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
They're not supposed to.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Well, so they haven't since then at least.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Okay, well, that's something to me. The fact that a
judge has to issue a temporary restraining order to forbid
officers from quote I'm quoting the La Times here, intentionally
assaulting a journalist who is carrying who's gathering information at
a protest, or that they're not allowed to stop journalists
from going into protest areas that have been closed off
(28:06):
to the public. The fact that a judge has to
tell that to a police department is the whole problem for.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Sure, for sure, And the fact that officers don't have
an abiding obligation to follow that order and will still
do what they think has to be done in the
moment is the greater problem.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Abiding obligation meaning that I mean, they're going to do
whatever they want basically, is what you're saying, and lawyers speak.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
In the moment, In the moment, they're going to do
what they want to do and worry about it later
and have no accountability. Basically, that's the problem as well.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Can we ban less lethal weapons?
Speaker 2 (28:40):
I mean what, No, there is not the political will
to limit policing because the majority community is still considers
the police the last protection between us and them.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Back to what you were saying about this Gluck case, correct,
which is, you know, showing the disparities between the way
victims in the court system are viewed correct by juries.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Correct. And so look at the picture in today's LA Times.
He looks like most of LA And if it can
happen to him, it can happen to you. We are
more connected than you believe.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
So you talked about the MINSI case and other cases
that got Darrel Gates, the notorious police chief at that
time of the LAPD to bam a choke hold.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
It keeps me going because I've seen benefits from what
I do a civil rights lawyer, making change for all
of us, and that keeps me going.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
So, but you don't have hope that we can limit
these non supposedly less lethal weapons. You feel like the
political will is there just to see a repeat of
what happened with the choke hold because these are expensive.
This right here, these two cases, your two cases alone
is like seven million dollar.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Indeed, indeed, the power that be will take the position
that there's casualties in every war. Cops always say, 'tims
better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
That's just the way it is. I wish they would
put me out of business, mister Primer. They won't. They
(30:21):
never will. Regrettably, they never will.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Yeah, I mean, I get they won't put you out
of business. But we're talking about the impact of what
you've done. And I remember last year we had I
don't I don't remember it detail for detail, but I
do remember the conversation about what types of less lethal
ammunition the cops could use, and there was some limiting
(30:45):
of certain types that were considered more likely to injure,
and that gave me hope. Well, just like I think
we should ban high speed chases, which cops should not
be chasing people through the streets. You can follow them
with a helicopter, have drones. There are cameras everywhere. They're
gonna run out of gas. Why are you endangering civilian lives.
It's the same kind of thing with this less lethal
(31:08):
weaponry for me, because most of the time the tape
I see, you could have contained that crowd. You could
have contained that human or those three humans without doing that,
without endangering their lives.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
You have a progressive eye and you see things differently
than most regrettably, what many see is cheer chaos. There's
tear gas, people throwing tear gas back at the cops.
They have shields, they're throwing bottles, they're throwing locks, they're
throwing concrete chunks, and we need these police to keep
us Safe's I wish it wasn't that way, but that's
(31:43):
that's the way it is. Regrettably, so.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Are you what is the solution when it comes to
or what is the not even solution progress when it
comes to less lethal weapons? Just we just have to
keep getting shot by rubber bullets, poked by batons, whether
we're journalists or people exercising our right to protest.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Until enough of us care. It's only the squeaky wheel
that gets any oil, and until enough of us care.
That the politicians want to change. They have made some
modifications on using less lethals and having them directly targeted,
but so long as there continues to be occasions when
(32:30):
the public believes some response is necessary to quell the outrage,
to quell the masses, to quail the protests, there will
never be an elimination of less lethos. I don't think.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Morris says that's why he says, that's why I protest
solo beautiful materials, but solo protesting makes it difficult to
harass me. I've been warned by security experts that I
should stop going to protest by myself, because you need
to have a witness to whatever happens to you doesn't
happen to you, especially in ice protests, where they can
kidnap you, take you into custody and no one may
(33:05):
know where you went or even what agency took. You'd
be nice to have a witness to tell your family
what happened to you.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I understand the advice wholeheartedly. I understand the advice because
it's difficult. There was not an independent witness in mister
Gluck's case that we were able to identify who said, yeah,
I saw what happened, and what he what happened was wrong.
So I get the advice.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
Talking with Attorney Carl Douglas less lethal weapons, it's the
conversation and the case he just won against the county
three point eight million and it you know, life changing injuries,
but less lethal nonetheless, because your clients are still living
to testify. Continuing this conversation, when we come forward on
(33:51):
KBLA fifteen eighty, Attorney Carl Douglas is here, we're talking
less lethal weaponry. And congratulations to Douglas Hickson your big
victory here in this Glock case. But also you know
Jamal shake Care case. Even though you didn't get the
total result you wanted, he still walked away with over
three million in that case. But they're asking in the
(34:15):
chat about qualified immunity, journalists don't have qualified immunity right.
Qualified immunity is a legal principle that applies to government officials.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
And protects police officers from being sued. It's a federal
concept that is controlled by federal laws, which is one
reason why ninety percent of my cases are filed in
state court because there is no qualified immunity. But it
allows a shield for police officers to be protected against
(34:45):
lawsuits when there is a uniqueness about that particular circumstance
that officers could not have known their conduct was illegal.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
So I mean, that's another aspect to why, at least
federally we wouldn't we wouldn't see accountability for cops in
these less lethal cases. And doesn't that qualified immunity patina
the vibe if you will translate to juries in any jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
I mean, well, federal courts are different than state courts.
In California, we're lucky because the state court system affords
a healthy civil rights law. So litigans have the right
in California in state court to seek attorney fees and
many of the same kinds of damages that are limited
in federal courts Across the nation, Federal juries tend to
(35:34):
be more conservative than state jurys. The processes are different
than laws are different, so most civil rights lawries file
their cases in state. In federal court, I prefer, and
we had Douglas at law, but first state court.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
That makes sense. So it's not just the attitude of
the jury or the likeliness to convict, but also the
rules and regulations about what you can recover.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
And what they can ask for, and the jurisdiction. The
Central District of California goes from the Orange County line
to Riverside to San Luis Obispo, as opposed to twenty
miles from the courthouse for state court cases. So I'd
rather have cases where there's a more concentrated pool of jurors.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
That look like mer jurors that are actually connected to
the region where the incident is indeed is unfolding that
qualified immunity technically also could apply to other government workers.
I know Congresswoman i On Presley has a bill and
qualified immunity which black lives matter, and just as families
(36:34):
are working to try to pass highly unlikely in this administration.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
I've been kind calling it highly unlikely, impossible, impossible.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Under this administration or any administration.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Impossible until trump Ism is in the background of our memories.
So a change in administration will not change the tenor
to allow for the elimination of qualified immunity, because there's
(37:06):
not the political will to limit the scope of police
officers doing policing that protects us from them.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
It's astounding to me because the number of police of
black people and all people killed by police has not
slowed down since twenty twenty. In fact, it's increased every year.
Just because you're not tracking it, just because it's not
in the headlines, it doesn't mean that it's gone away.
And but yet we don't have the political will I mean, isn't.
(37:38):
It's just a matter of time of normalizing the change.
There was probably a time when you didn't think they
would ever outlaw chokeholds.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Indeed, so I never say never, But it's not gonna
be anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
Not gonna be any time soon. I don't know. For
those of us who like to go to protests because
we think it's the right thing to do. You know,
what advice would you gives, as you know, as a lawyer,
in terms of dealing with you know, leslie the weaponry.
(38:12):
What I've seen and what I've heard from folks I
know is that that are protesting now, is that there's
less warning and the possibility that you won't get any
warning at all before you're fired on to your guests
or you know, taken down with so called non lethal force.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Advice is always difficult because on one hand, I'm a
strong believer in the value and the beauty of protesting,
and I'm a strong proponent of the First Amendment. On
the other hand, I see it after the carnage. I
see how the lies are impacted, I see how the
misery is inflicted, and I see the loss of accountability
(38:53):
and how bad that is for our society. But I
cannot say anything to discourage someone to peacefully protest their
beliefs and their interests, but be mindful of their surroundings,
be mindful that things can change in a minute, and
what might be peaceful in one minute might turn tragically
violent the next.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Right, So you're saying, what is reporters privileged? Reporters don't
really have privilege. What we have is access. And many
of those journalists that were targeted by cops have a
press pass which is issued by the LAPD. Mine is expired,
but I do have one. You have to go down there,
you have to be fingerprinted, you've got to talk to
(39:36):
the cop that's over that, they take your picture with
their little camera, and they give you weeks later a
laminated press pass, which means you are in their system.
That's not a privilege, but it's meant to grant you
access to crime scenes and protest scenes so that you
could report on what's happening. And that's a violation of
our ability to do our job.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Because the police, I don't want the journalists there watching
as they do what they do, out of fear that
they will report when they do something wrong and that
will rise political anger, public anger against them. So the
officers emotionally reacting, do not want the journalists there reporting
(40:19):
on what they are doing because they're often doing wrong.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
Yeah, that's which is why we need to be there
exactly the eyes and ears of the public. And this
is not supposed to be Gaza where they're just killing journalists,
mowing them down like nothing. We've got sixty seconds here,
Attorney Douglas, what would you like to leave us with.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
I always talk and we talked about it here today
about the importance of people of all people, all your listeners,
being involved in the jury system. Black people have power
on jurors and that power is palpable, and taking part
in our justice system is something that I always encourage
and implore your listeners and all listeners to take part.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yep, I wish we could make it, you know. I
wish we could eat level the playing field so that
folks would be able to replace their wages when they
were on juries. But I you know, I know you're
right if we don't show up.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
And it's a fascinating experience, That's what I keep telling
It's a fascinating experience.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
At tourney. Carl Douglas, as always, it's a pleasure to
talk with you. Thanks so much for coming in.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
Please have me back. I love your show. I love
you and your show.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
I appreciate that so much to have a Smiley's Show
is up next. He's got another jam packed, jam packed
episode for you. And thank you for taking part in
our inaugural think tank Thursday. That's what we call our Thursdays. Now,
don't forget to tap in. What's your what is your
social media?
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Sure ced dot E s q C ed Carl E.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
Douglas eschoire and you can find me at the Premia Radio.
We are at KBLA fifteen eighty. Everywhere, please like, follow, subscribe,
and make smart ass comments like my mama, the late
Great Diana Prima used to say, history is now. Like
I always say, we're making it together. Until tomorrow, Be safe,
(42:11):
be informed, One Love
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.