• Listen to this segment

In the early morning hours of October 28th 2008, a 20 year old named Julian Alexander was fatally shot by an Anaheim police officer. Alexander’s crime: he was standing in his own front yard, attempting to protect himself and his pregnant wife with a stick in hand. Oh, and he happened to be black. The white officer, Kevin Flanagan had been chasing a group of juveniles who allegedly broke into a department store when he encountered Alexander. The newly married Anaheim resident had come out of his house to investigate the ruckus. After shooting him twice in the chest, Flanagan handcuffed him to the ground. Julian Alexander, who had just gotten married 9 days earlier, died after being taken to UCI Medical Center – his family claims he was delayed medical treatment as a result of being handcuffed. Within hours of the shooting, the Anaheim Police department issued an apology for the shooting, calling it a “tragic situation,” and clearing the victim of any wrong doing. Now, the Orange County District Attorney’s office has decided not to press charges against the police officer. Kevin Flanagan has been back on routine patrol duty since mid-December. There are currently two federal civil-rights lawsuits, filed by separate family members set to begin next month.

GUEST: Hector Villagra, Director of the ACLU/SC’s Orange County Office. For more information, visit www.aclu-sc.org.

Rough Transcript:

Excerpt of what Orange County D.A. Tony Rackaucas said on Tuesday as he justified Flanagan’s actions: “A reasonable police officer in that circumstance likely would shoot there person who’s coming at him with that stick as though he’s going to slug him with it. He’s about to be assaulted and possibly injured and he’s entitled to defend himself from that. But I think that the public would understand that.

Sonali Kolhatkar: My guest is Hector Villagra, the Director of the ACLU/SC’s Orange County Office. First let’s get your response to what the D.A. just said, essentially that the police officer had a right to defend himself against a man with a stick and that the public would agree. How do you respond to that?

Hector Villagra: Well, we’re very concerned about this obviously that the details right now are very hazy and unfortunately they’re likely to remain that way, to remain shrouded in secrecy. But from what we do know, the officer’s actions and the stories that the district attorney has told seems very implausible. The issue here is whether the officer was engaged in lawful self defense. And the force used by the officer has to be reasonably proportional to the threat posed to him. And the question here is why resort to deadly force when you are confronted by someone who has come out into their own yard to investigate a commotion and is just carrying a stick. I would imagine one question the public would want to know an answer to is Why not resort to a TAZER(SP) or to some other use of force that would have been less serious than a gun?

SK: And there’s also some sense that Julian Alexander might not even have known he was being confronted by a police office. It was dark. It was one thirty in the morning. And perhaps he wouldn’t even have approached the police officer with a stick had he known it was a police officer.

HV: Absolutely. What we know is based on the officer’s account and based on statements from the juveniles who were being chased. We don’t know the circumstances of the interviews with those suspects. We don’t know what aspects of the account they have been able to collaborate. But it seems plausible that Julian Alexander would not have known who it was he was confronting. The flashlight the officer had was likely shown in his face. He may have been walking towards him to get a better look of who it was in his yard. That seems perfectly reasonable. But we won’t know the details of this if the district attorney does not release a full account of the investigation. That’s what needs to happen here. We have government officials with the power to take a person’s life. And in a situation like that there has to be the highest level of accountability and openness, and right now we are no where close to that.

SK: On this issue of secrecy, an OC blog on Tuesday reported that during the tenure reign of the D.A. Tony RECAUCUS(SP), the D.A.’s office has only once pursued charges in an officer related shooting case, in 2005. In 2004, the OC Weekly found that of the 50 officer related shootings that had occurred in the past five years, none had been pursued by the D.A.’s office. Since then there have been more, and in 2007, the D.A.’s office cleared two Huntington Beach officers involved in the shooting death of ASHLEY MCDONALD(SP), who was shot fifteen times when she charged at the officers with a knife. And in that case the D.A.’s office upheld the finding by the sheriff’s department that if an armed suspect is within twenty one feet and officer who fears for his or her life is allowed to shoot to kill. Do you think that this finding by the sheriff’s department may be the justification that the D.A. is using?

HV: It certainly seems like that is what the justification is here. Although I would note that in that situation they seem to be dealing with a armed suspect. It’s not clear what level of weapon the person was armed with.

SK: So a knife or a stick is treated as the equivalent of a gun?

HV: Exactly, that’s question here, the reasonableness of the officer’s response and is it proportionable to the threat that’s posed? And I think that the issue of the D.A.’s history of clearing officers in these shootings raises a very serious concern. Is the District Attorney in a position to conduct thorough and independent investigation? These are prosecuters who are accustomed to working with police officers and building their cases with the assistance of police officers. And maybe what is needed is either a unit of the district attorney’s office that does not have day to day contact with police officers or maybe they should be referred directly to the attorney general or to some other government entity that is not possibly influenced by its relationship with police officers.

SK: Kevin Flanagan is a ten year veteran of the police force. Let’s talk about the family of Julian Alexander. His wife has since had her baby and, I understand, has a pretty significant family network. How have they responded to the D.A.’s findings?

HV: They’ve been outraged and very disappointed over the decision not to press charges. They are very concerned that this has been and will be swept under the rug, as it were, and I think they have good reason to be concerned. The district attorney actually concluded its investigation on March 6th, but did not announce that decision until a week later, and we had been notified of a potential decision and we started calling the District Attorney’s office, and it was only after those calls were made that this press conference was called together earlier this week. I think that the family has good reason to be concerned that this has not been taken as seriously as it should be and that the details of the investigation are not out in the public where they need to be.

SK: Now on top of the fact that Julian Alexander was killed in his own front yard, trying to defend himself with a stick, he was handcuffed on the ground after being shot twice in the chest. The family contends that he might have possibly lived, that there was a slim possibility that if he had been rushed to a hospital right away, he might have survived. But he was handcuffed after he was shot in the chest. Did the D.A. justify that in any way?

HV: I’m not aware of any justification for that, for the alleged delay in medical treatment, or for the family’s concern that they were not allowed access to Julian’s body for five days.

SK: Five days?!

HV: Five days.

SK: This is after the police department already apologized for the shooting?

HV: Yes, there’s a real question here as to the sensitivity of the police department to a family who has suffered. One of the worst tragedies anyone can imagine is for a loved one to be shot down when they are acting completely innocently and completely within their rights.

SK: I don’t know how many umpth times we’ve covered a case like this on this program and so many other cases have been covered on Pacifica programs. Of course we think of Oscar Grant. We think of Shawn Bell. We think of OMADU DEALO(SP). This happens over and over and over again. Where, usually young black male victims are shot at by white police officers and then those police officers are exonerated. What is your comment on this ongoing state of affairs where this sort of impunity is allowed to take place. Where the bodies of young black men are considered acceptable and justifiable fauder for the police?

HV: I think that’s precisely what’s lacking here from both the police department and the district attorney is any recognition that this is not just a single incident. That this is something we see over and over and over again. And that the pattern that the public sees is very, very questionable, at best. And that there’s no real sensitivity to that and there’s no attempt to address it.

SK: And it seems as though this exoneration is what gives the police license to continue. That if they were held accountable that there might be some feedback to try to be more careful.

HV: Yes, absolutely. With no criminal charges, an administrative review process that is also shrouded in secrecy, there is no real incentive to have any reform. And I would note here that what we often hear in these situations is that there should not be a rush to judgement… Well, it seems that this officer returned to duty in December, well before the District Attorney had cleared him. And obviously before the administrative investigation, which is still ongoing, was completed. So it seems to be a situation where they have done precisely what they were told not to do, which is essentially clear this officer in advance.

SK: So finally, Hector, what about these lawsuits. It seems as though the family has been given absolutely no option, but to sue.

HV: Yes, that’s one of the aspects of this that is so troubling. Is that the lawsuit becomes the only avenue for the family to actually determine what happened and gain full access to the information about the incident. And it’s very troubling that this is a public function and this type of investigation should be open to public view. Not just to the litigans in the case. And often there are settlements where there is a nondisclosure provisions. So it may be that the family reaches some sort of settlement with the police department, they’re paid some level of compensation, and then the details will never be made public. And that’s just not the way the system should be working at all.

SK: Are there any websites about the case of Julian Alexander or any groups that have formed to organize around it and call for justice or protests or anything planned?

HV: Yes, we are forming to organize a compaign around this incident. We know that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is also working on it. We’re hoping to make a call to the state attorney general to invest in essense the District Attorney’s investigation. And also look into this ten year history of repeatedly clearing officers in shootings. We know in experience that nothing that humans are involved in is ever perfect. Yet if you look at the District Attorney’s records, apparently all of these officers acted perfectly within reason.

Special thanks to Celina for transcribing this interview.