Autopsy Reveals LAPD Anti-Gang Cops Shot Ezell Ford in Back at Close Range
Back in August, right after the Ferguson police killing of Michael Brown, a black 25-year-old Los Angeles man, Ezell Ford, was killed by L.A. anti-gang officers.
The officers claim Ford tried to take their gun during what they called an "investigative stop" for some reason. Witnesses question the claim that Ford was trying to take their gun.

Autopsy reports released today reveal one of the shots that killed Ford was fired in his back at very close range. As local radio station website SCPR.org reports (copy of autopsy at that link):
A copy of the coroner's report released Monday….says the gunshot to the back has a "muzzle imprint," indicating that it was fired at close range…..
The autopsy, which is normally a public document, was released Monday after months of secrecy caused by an "investigative hold" placed on it by the LAPD. After numerous protests and complaints by the community Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti vowed last month to release the report before the end of the year.
The two Newton Division anti-gang officers shot Ford, 25, during what an LAPD spokesman called an "investigative stop"…..
The family has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and the LAPD. It claims police racially profiled Ford and used excessive force against him. Officers "were reckless" and "acted with callous indifference," the lawsuit alleges….
Police have not said what prompted the physical altercation between Ford and the officers in August….
[Ford] suffered from a "mental challenge," Dorothy Clark, his grandmother, told KPCC. She would not elaborate, but added that he spoke very little. "He didn't communicate with anybody. Not even us, his immediate family."
Multiple investigations into the shooting continue. The LAPD's Force Investigation Division and the LA District Attorney's Justice Integrity Division are assessing whether the officers acted criminally or out of department policy.
Previous Reason blogging on the Ezell Ford shooting.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Police have not said what prompted the physical altercation between Ford and the officers in August....
Stories straight, it takes time to get them.
I agree with you completely.
HAHA!
The police were following orders.
Just like this guy.
Police have not said what prompted the physical altercation between Ford and the officers in August....
Stories straight, it takes time to get them.
I disagree with you completely and you are a moran.
HAHA!
Early Happy New Year, EDG. Fuck every state that is not....no, just fuck every state. That is all.
(to the tune of Auld Lang Syne)
Should all United States be dissolved. . .
And never brought to mind. . .
So we can all be free from their control. . .
And free in body and mind. . !
STOP BEING ANTI-COP!
They are WINNING!
hth
Is there some material difference between the two?
It's the same difference as "suspended with pay" and "administrative leave with pay".
/derpfee
Dunphy assured us no cop has ever been suspended with pay.
He said they are just on "administrative leave" with pay.
Not sure why he didn't bother to explain the difference to we civilians though.
I left it blank because I'll probably need it next year
I can't think of very many examples where more benefit of the doubt has been applied. Assuming that protester is in NYC or LA or hell, even Albuquerque, that sign is going to get a shit load of mileage in 2015.
Those goal posts won't move themselves!
The labor-fellating progressives at Jacobin are now working hard to distance their ideaology from Police Unions.
"Police unions have long been distinct from the labor movement. Structurally, their allegiance must be to the repressive state rather than the broader working class."
**The squirrels won't let me post anything with a link, it seems. Sorry, you'll just have to google it**
What do you know? The blind pig found a truffle.
"progressives at Jacobin are now working hard to distance their ideaology from Police Unions."
There's some truth to that. Far more so than most unions police unions tend to be more conservative and supporting of Republicans. This is why Scott Walker exempted them for example.
This is why Scott Walker exempted them for example.
Linky? I thought he exempted them for purely political reasons, namely, that they could bring more heat in opposition to his reforms than he was willing to risk.
We read the District and Appellate Court's decisions on Act 10 and iirc they mentioned that all members of the labor unions that endorsed Walker were exempted from the act.
We read the District and Appellate Court's decisions on Act 10...
We? Did the gerbil in your ass explain it to you later?
He expects you to know that he is in law school.
What were the cops investigating when they stopped the corpse-to-be?
What was their reasonable suspicion for stopping him, in particular? Presumably, this was a "Terry" stop, which requires reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts.
What was the LAPD investigation that led to the investigative hold on the autopsy?
Duh !
They were investigating the possibility that Rolling Stone might step on their dick again soon and take the spotlight off of their problem.
Silly lawyer. It's cause he was breaking the Law! Which law? The Supreme court saws it doesn't matter as long as the cops "reasonably" thinks it's a law.
Just before I looked at the check that said $4396 , I accept ...that...my brother woz like they say actualie making money parttime from there pretty old laptop. . there best friend started doing this for under 11 months and by now cleard the mortgage on there villa and got a great new Cadillac .
learn the facts here now ------ http://www.jobsfish.com
I spotted this interesting article from American Thinker about who's behind the anti-cop demonstrations.
http://www.americanthinker.com.....tions.html
And this meme at https://imgflip.com/i/ezq8m
Oh, like how "concealing evidence", "obstruction of justice", and "assault" are crimes but "investigative hold" and "investigative stop" are just vague buzzwords to make bad procedures seem merely questionable?