Criticism was not justified

Re “Shot for throwing a bottle,” Editorial, Oct. 7, and “LAPD saw a veiled threat in video clip,” Oct. 7

In your editorial, The Times took me, the LAPD and city leaders to task for purportedly not answering questions regarding a recent officer-involved shooting. However, we not only publicly answered the majority of those questions but our answers were included in a Times article published the same day as your editorial.

The LAPD publicly discloses more information about its uses of force than any police agency in the country. We provide preliminary information at the scene, we routinely issue press statements with additional details, and we publicly disclose detailed reports with the facts, analysis and findings in each case.

Some questions, like whether the shooting was in policy or what was the name of the decedent, cannot be answered within hours of an incident. Our civilian Board of Police Commissioners must determine whether an officer-involved shooting is consistent with our high standards, but only after a thorough investigation and analysis is completed.

The editorial board’s criticism that “the police haven’t even disclosed the dead man’s name” neglected to mention that the L.A. County coroner, not the LAPD, is responsible for disclosing the decedent’s name and does so only after notifying the next of kin — a long-standing procedure well-known to The Times.

Unfortunately, the editorial board drew conclusions and launched criticisms without first checking the facts or reviewing its own articles. The LAPD, however, remains committed to responsibly informing the public about its uses of force to the extent permissible by law. Charlie Beck

Los Angeles The writer is the chief of police for the city of Los Angeles