Prosecutors announced today that they will not file charges against LAPD officer John Hatfield, who was videotaped last June using a flashlight to hit prone car-theft suspect Stanley Miller. DA Steve Cooley's office said in a statement, "In light of the totality of the circumstances facing Officer Hatfield, we cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Hatfield's actions were without legal necessity."

First, Mayor Hahn:

Let me be clear: I do not agree with that decision. I saw what everyone else saw. However, I am not the District Attorney and I cannot make decisions as to whether or not someone faces criminal charges.

It is my full expectation that Chief Bratton will review the decision of the District Attorney's Office and take any and all appropriate actions. Chief Bratton has broad administrative authority to look at all of the officers' conduct and measure that conduct against LAPD's training, policies and procedures. I have every expectation that the Chief Bratton will do just that.

I have committed to making Los Angeles the safest big city in America and I insist that goal be reached through lawful, professional, compassionate policing.

Now Bob Baker, president of the Police Protective League:

We commend the District Attorney and the LAPD for their even-handedness. The Stanley Miller case is complex and to frame it as anything else ignores the facts. News video, shot from a helicopter, from one angle and in the dark, does not tell the whole story.

Stanley Miller is a twice-convicted car thief who was evading arrest after stealing a car and leading officers in a pursuit. He has since been charged for this car theft and for evading arrest. The officers, who were chasing him on foot, in the dark, were putting themselves at risk. This is their job, and this is why police officers are authorized, by law, to use force if necessary when arresting criminal suspects.

The District Attorney's office reviewed the facts of this case, as submitted by Chief Bratton. They reviewed the officers' actions, while taking into account the critical issues of authority, participation, training, procedure, perception and credibility. The decision today is consistent with the facts. We applaud the D.A. for conducting an even-handed analysis, and thank him for not basing his decision on the sometimes shrill coverage that this case has received in the media.

The residents and police officers of this city are only served when the conduct of police officers is judged on what did happen, not what people perceive happened.

Previously:
Uh-oh
'A test of the new LAPD'
About that citizens panel...
Where were the wire cutters?