1992 Los Angeles Riots

The Flawed Emergency Response to the 1992 Los Angeles Riots Despite there being a seemingly well-organized emergency response structure in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) hierarchy and evidence of tensions in the city that could lead to a major riot, the unsuspecting LAPD was still not prepared enough to control that biggest civil unrest in American history that ensued soon after the jury had announced their verdict on the fate of four LAPD officers who brutally assaulted a black man in an attempt to arrest him in late 1991. This major failure of the LAPD, a seemingly strong police department in America at the time, was majorly due to poor and insensitive leadership, hence, the reason I chose it as my case study. The current course

In a bid to stay cool and attempt not to stir any further tensions, the LAPD made it impossible for them to deal with a real emergency (Rosegrant, 2000). Gates, the then LAPD chief felt that police training and extra patrols would further breech the faith that existed between the officers and the public and as a result escalate the situation. Conversely, Bradley, LA’s first African-American mayor who was the sitting mayor at the time and an important member of the emergency response system, was also unsuspecting and silently seemed to support Gates’ low profile approach (Rosegrant, 2000). If at all Bradley’s actions were in a bid to amend for the recent constraints in his relationship with Gates, then it would be a marker of his poor leadership. Both leaders, however, were unsuspecting and expected a ruling which would be favorable to the public. As such, maintaining an unsuspecting view is in itself dangerous in criminal law and its poor leadership for leaders to inactivate all important systems just because they are not suspicious of anything. Good leaders in criminal justice should have a high index of

It is evident that prioritizing one’s opinion at the expense of fact can be detrimental in criminal justice. The people in leadership positions in the LAPD at the time of crises were of the opinion that the verdict to be released by the jury would be favorable to the public and that no upheavals would result. However, fact had it differently. Considering the composition of the jury and the process of selection of the jurors, it was evident that the ruling would favor the officers. Furthermore, it seems faulty for a leader in criminal justice to publicly express their opinion like Gates and Bradley did before considering