Should we believe the claims of departmental reform from our Fullerton police chief, Dan Hughes?

I will report and you can decide!

By Barry Levinson | It is important to remind our city officials, the press and our community that our “new” police chief was our “old” captain who was the direct supervisor of officers Ramos, Cincinelli, Wolfe, Hampton, Craig and Blatney.

Anyone who is familiar with police work knows that the real training of officers comes not from the training officer but from their direct superior, on a day-in and day-out basis. That would have been then-Captain Dan Hughes. Therefore, I am disappointed that Chief Hughes has never expressed his regret that he obviously failed to train those 6 men adequately.

I have given Dan Hughes’ comments about his viewing the video over 400 times much thought and analysis. First, the video was 33 minutes and 33 seconds in length. It would have taken him over 222 hours to view that video 400 times. Should we believe that he spent five-and-a-half-plus 40-hour weeks reviewing the video while on duty, or even at home?

What about the actual comments he made concerning the contents of the video itself. His contention was that those police officers acted properly as seen on the video.

There are only two possible explanations for his comments.

The first reason is that he really believes that those six officers under his direct command were doing their jobs as he trained them or,

Second, he believed that the video would never be released to the public and so he felt safe siding with his men.

The first possibility shows that he is as guilty as any of those officers for not knowing the proper boundaries for police behavior. That is downright frightening.

The other possibility shows his willingness to mislead the public for his own benefit. This is not behavior that inspires confidence and trust.

But yet he terminated officers Ramos, Cincinelli and Wolfe presumably based on their actions that very night. What is the public to believe? The Acting Chief Hughes’s statements that after viewing that video over 400 times taking over 222 hours to complete, that he saw nothing wrong? Or the other Chief Hughes who terminated those three officers for their conduct that very night. Which Dan Hughes are we to believe?

Finally, when will the press, the public and every one of our council members, demand that he explain those glaring contradictions?

This entry was posted in Fullerton Police Department and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Should we believe the claims of departmental reform from our Fullerton police chief, Dan Hughes?

  1. Walter Clark says:

    The lack of contrition on the part of the police is because of the monopoly they maintain. A public relations department for a monopoly is a joke; merely another arbitrary rule — something needing only a wink and a nod — and not something they desperately need to stay in business. As in the words of Andrew Jackson when it was pointed out to him that the Supreme Court ruled against his action concerning an Indian affair: “Let the Supreme Court send their army out to stop me.” In the modern vernacular, the new police chief might say when it was pointed out that their action was unacceptable: “fuck ’em, what are they going to do, put us out of business?”

  2. No matter who is in charge, what we need is a structural solution. A civilian police commission would ensure that we don’t have to guess about these things.

Comments are closed.