Subject: “A Tragic Misinterpretation,” or a case of 7 trigger-happy LAPD “cowboy” cops shooting down two Hispanic women who work for the Los Angeles Times as deliverers.
Emma Hernandez, 71, and her daughter Margie Carranza, 47, for years toiled slavishly for the Times. When one of them was shot twice in the back, Times Publisher Eddy Hartenstein turned his back on the both of them. For two days after the attack, he refused to even acknowledge in print that the two LAPD- targeted women worked for the Times.
Times Editor-in-Chief Davan Maharaj treats his own Times delivery workers like trash both before and after the LAPD shooting…refusing to publish a past photo of either of the victims. Plus refusing to assign a reporter to visit the ladies to get their personal stories.
New owners of the Times are facing the prospects of a major lawsuit to be filed by the two shooting victims in this horrific instance of LAPD gun-crazy brutality stemming from poorly-trained and allegedly racist LAPD officers opening fire on a pair of on-the-job Times delivery workers of advanced age. Inexplicably, cops identified and targeted them as one of their own while manhunting a rogue LAPD ex-cop named Dorner (and nicknamed “Deadeye Dorner” by fellow officers) on the lam.
Preposterous, isn't it?
Nevertheless, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is sticking to his incredulous excuse of honest police error by way of officer-mistaken identity, resulting in the subsequently nightmarish LAPD crossfire that sent one of the two Times-employee victims to the nearest ICU.
Redbeam Street in Torrance ran red with Mexican blood, courtesy of LAPD crime fighters.
The Times hasn't yet visited the hospital where the older employee-victim is in ICU.
Why hasn't the Times assigned a reporter to do a personal story about their two minority employees nearly shot to death by anonymous LAPD officers during this sick Keystone Cops incident.
Has the Times agreed, anonymously, to pay for a new van to replace the double victims' bullet-ridden van? What about the neighbor-owned bullet riddled vehicles that were parked on the block where the one-sided shootout took place?
Why are the owners of the LAT on the legal hook, sitting in the hot seat alongside the-guilty-as-hell LAPD?
Here is the actual reason:
The former Tribune Corp. faces some monster megabuck lawsuit exposure if the two females who amazingly survived the LAPD shoot-to-kill fusillade aimed at their vehicle that was meant to terminate their lives can show in court that the Times violated state labor laws when using these women to deliver the Times.
How much were each paid? Did they have contracts? Was the Times contributing into a Social Security account for both of them? Or were the two women kept “off the books” ..like Beverly Hills Hispanic maids?
Hollywoodhighlands.org is requesting a federal investigation by the Social Security Administration to determine if the Times violated federal law.
Violation of labor law is a common practice in the newspaper business when hiring immigrant Hispanics to drop off copies.
To make the legal case against the Times simple, if the Times had followed state and federal laws, the two ladies with LAPD bullets in their bodies would not have been delivering the Times on that Torrance Street on an early morning.
Therefore the victims would not have become victims. So the LAT can be sued for pain and suffering damages just as the City of Los Angeles can be sued. Even a lawsuit against the City of Torrance is a strong possibility.
A smart lawyer will prevail. A huge out-of-court settlement is in the offing. Otherwise, the litigant would be free to access very embarrassing internal LAPD documents through the legal process of “discovery,” which trumps the California version of he Freedom of Information Act.
Once again, L.A. Times, please respond: “A Tragic Misinterpretation” or a clear-cut case of seven trigger-happy LAPD cops shooting down two older Mexican women who had the thankless task of working delivery for the Times in Torrance.
It took the Publisher more than 48 hours to concede in print that the newspapers they were delivering were copies of the LAT. Every news story with a Torrance shooting must now first be reviewed by the Times Chief Counsel before a censored version is published.
The Times has abandoned the last vestiges of journalistic ethics when dealing with this burgeoning scandal.
The ACLU used to lead the struggle against LAPD racist cops. Why is the ACLU uncustomarily silent in the face of this latest L.A. racist miscarriage of justice?
Could the silence be traced to the ACLU's past involvement with the current Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio R. Villaraigosa?
Looking the other way saves the Mayor, who is a former ACLU guy, from sharing the racist blame.
Mr. Walsh may be contracted at hollywoodhighlands.org
