In January of 1999, Irvin Landrum Jr. (18), was fatally wounded by the Claremont (CA) Police Department during a routine midnight traffic stop.
Several months later, the incident became extremely controversial as more facts were revealed about what really happened that night.
This documentary captures the essence of the period.
http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~hfairchi/landrum/OurSide.html
In January, 1999, Irvin Landrum Jr. was killed by two (2) Claremont police officers during a routine traffic stop.
Irvin was stopped allegedly for speeding on January 11, 1999 at approximately 1:07 a.m. Irvin was taken out of his car by two (2) officers reportedly to search the car and his person. The police officer claimed that when one of them started to pat Irvin down he took two steps back and pulled a gun from his waistband, aimed it at the police officer, and fired the gun.
The police officers claim they saw a muzzle flash in their direction and heard a gun shot. The police officers then took cover and fatally shot Irvin.
The ballistic report concluded that the alleged gun--the police claimed that Irvin had--was never fired. In addition, the forensic report concluded that no fingerprints could be lifted from the alleged weapon or the bullets inside of the gun. The gun had been wiped clean. Irvin could not have cleaned the gun because the injuries inflicted on his body left him unconscious from the moment he was shot until he expired six days later. Doesn’t this sound like the case in Los Angeles where rogue cops were killing men of color and then planted weapons on them to implicate them in a crime?
The other police officer involved in this shooting decided he would take the 5th and not make a statement to investigators about the activities of the police that led to the killing of Irvin.
Both of these police officers were allowed to continue to patrol the streets despite the facts that support an attempt by the police to cover up their crime.
1. The gun was never fired, but the police claim they were shot at by Irvin.
2. No fingerprints were found on the alleged weapon, not even a smudge print, or on any of the other seventeen items of evidence collected.
3. One police officer takes the 5th. Why? Because he has done something wrong? Or maybe he witnessed the wrongdoing of his fellow police officer? Taking the 5th has reduced himself to that of a common criminal who seeks to avoid “self-incrimination.” There is no logical explanation for allowing this police officer to continue carrying a gun on city streets under the circumstances.
We are concerned by the City of Claremont’s decision not to remove these police officers from street patrol pending a complete federal investigation that entirely exonerates them. For the city government not to remove these two (2) police officers from patrolling city streets indicates their indifference to public safety. No person(s), even if they are police, who might have murdered another human being, should be allowed to arm oneself and take to our streets.
We are asking that you please join us on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. in front of Claremont City Hall for a peaceful demonstration. Our demonstration calls for the City of Claremont to remove from street patrol the two police officers responsible for the death of Irvin Landrum, Jr., and to launch a complete and thorough investigation.
“We want truth in investigative reporting not police covering for police.”
“Please support our efforts to put a stop to this shameful practice.”
Irvin's mother stands at the site of Irvin's killing, on Baseline Road in Claremont, CA. Although he was being searched next to his car, he took "two steps back" and died in the grass to Ms. Lee's left. No blood was in the street or on the sidewalk. Was he executed? And if so, why?
When Irvin's new car was returned to the family, dog prints were easily seen on the upholstery, indicating a search for drugs. None were reported found.
A closer view of the dog prints that were to be found throughout the car.
Irvin's Obituary
http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~hfairchi/landrum/DebunkCCFacts.html
On the Killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr.: Debunking the City of Claremont’s “Fact Sheet”
One may look at a bit mapped version of the City of Claremont’s Fact Sheet to verify that we have made no alterations in the “Facts” presented. In this debunking essay, we present the City of Claremont’s position, verbatim, in a red font; and we place our debunking statements in green. The red type fonts, which follow, do not have any gaps, edits, corrections or other changes, other than the color of the font. Our interpretations and debunking are contained in indented paragraphs, and are colored green. In addition, we have our own “theory” of the killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr., which is being developed and reviewed.
August 4, 1999
City of Claremont
We do not actually believe that this “Fact Sheet” was produced on August 4, 1999, as alleged. We first learned of the existence of the “Fact Sheet” in mid September, 1999. In checking around with various sources in Claremont, we were unable to find anyone who had received the “Fact Sheet.” We were told that the "Fact Sheet" was sent to the Los Angeles Times, and wondered why it had not been disseminated more locally. But, after receiving the "Fact Sheet", we noticed a number of very glaring errors, and began publicizing them. After that, in late September, the City issued a new "Fact Sheet", but didn’t change the date.
Landrum Incident -- Fact Sheet
We challenge the reference to the killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr. as an “incident.” It is in this way that government agencies deny their culpability in the deaths of innocent civilians. Thus, when civilians are killed in fly-by bombings in Iraq, for example, the deaths are called "collateral damage." In a similar manner, the police killing of Irvin Landrum Jr. is referred to as the "Landrum Incident." In addition, we dispute most of the alledged "facts." Thus, rather than calling the City of Claremont document a "Fact Sheet," a truer description would be the City's "theory" of what happened.
Mr. Landrum was stopped for speeding on Base Line Road on January 7, 1999 a little after 1:00 in the morning. A Claremont police officer was travelling westbound, Landrum was traveling eastbound. The officer turned on radar because Landrum appeared to be speeding. Mr. Landrum was clocked at 63 mph. The speed limit on Base Line Road is 45 mph.
The officer was not able to observe the gender or race of the driver of the vehicle; it was night time, the officer and Mr. Landrum were travelling in opposite directions and Mr.Landrum was travelling almost 20 miles over the speed limit. The officer turned his vehicle around, stopped Landrum and approached his car. Landrum had no driver's license or registration but did produce a proof of insurance certificate.
The above account is replete with problems and inaccuracies. First, the date of the traffic stop was January 11, 1999. We actually do not know the time of the stop as we have not been allowed to have copies of the Dispatcher's voice record with a time stamp. We have requested those records, but to date, nearly a year after the killing of Irvin Landrum, Jr., we have not received them.
The City claims that the officer and Irvin were traveling in opposite directions, and that Irvin appeared to be speeding. We believe that it is exceedingly difficult to judge speeds when traveling in opposite directions, and that the radar could not be turned on in time to accurately record Irvin's speed. In order for the City's statement to be valid, the car would have to be equipped with a "mobile radar" and the report should report the speed of the officer's car in order to validate the claim that Irvin was speeding, as indicated by radar. We are attempting to obtain information regarding the type of radar installed on the car in question, and the speed of the officer's car at the time of the recording of Irvin's speed.
Further, we doubt that if the officer and Irvin were traveling in opposite directions, with a combined speed of close to 100 miles per hour, that the officer would have had time to turn on the radar and clock Irvin's speed. Most significantly, the officer did not cite Irvin for speeding, but he did cite him for much less significant violations, as indicated later in the City's "Fact Sheet." If the officer is going to go to the trouble to write a citation, it stretches credibility to think that he would do so without including the most important violation, the one he stopped him for, and the one that he supposedly had hard evidence on (the radar).
The City's "Fact Sheet" states that Irvin had no driver's license or registration, but did produce a proof of insurance certificate. In fact, Irvin was a licensed driver; he simply did not have his driver's license on him at the time. But more significantly, a "proof of insurance" indicates that Irvin was an insured driver; which implies, indeed requires, both a driver's license and registration. But most telling is the fact that Irvin was driving a new car, and the registration slip was taped to the inside of the rear window.
Mr. Landrum was on probation for carrying a concealed weapon. The officer asked Landrum if he was carrying a gun. Landrum responded that he was not carrying a gun. Landrum offered to let the officer search his car.
The above statement from the City's "Fact Sheet" reveals an intention to deceive the public and to manipulate public opinion. When they state that "[Irvin] was on probation for carrying a concealed weapon," they neglect to point out what the "concealed weapon" was. They also neglect to point out that the "concealed weapon" was not on his person, but in his car. Irvin was stopped and searched, and BRASS KNUCKLES were found not on his person but in his car. To say that Irvin was on probation for "...carrying a concealed weapon" is an obvious, yet transparent, attempt to manipulate public opinion.
Why would the officer "...ask ... if [Irvin] was carrying a gun"? Is this a routine part of a traffic stop for speeding? When was the last time that YOU were asked by an officer--who had stopped you for a traffic violation--whether or not you were on probation or carrying a gun?
The City expects us to believe that "Landrum offered to let the officer search his car." Imagine that, if you will. It is one o'clock in the morning, you're on your way home to get some rest before an early start at work (Irvin had to be at work at 5:00 a.m.). If you get pulled over by the police, would you "offer" to let the police search your car? Would you make this offer if, in fact, you had a gun on your person? This is so incredible that we believe it belongs in "Ripley's Believe It or Not." We, certainly, choose not to believe it.
Mr. Landrum's girlfriend has given a statement to Sheriff's investigators confirming that Mr. Landrum often carried a gun in his car.
Landrum's girlfriend actually was questioned under very unusual circumstances (Irvin's mother, with whom he lived, was never questioned, even through October, 1999). But what she tells us that she told the Sheriff's investigators is that she saw him once with a gun: a non-working BB gun that belonged to his grandmother. His grandmother confirms that she owned the non-working BB gun. We have not uncovered any evidence, from any source, that Irvin ever owned a gun or that he ever carried a gun in his car. But most significantly, the City's "Fact Sheet" inserts the above statement in the chronology in a way that lends credence to the officer's activities. The misquoted statement by Irvin's friend was obtained many days after Irvin was mortally wounded by the Claremont police officers. This kind of manipulative mis-statement of "facts" amounts to an Obstruction of Justice!
The officer, using his discretion, wrote a citation for no driver's license and no registration but only warned and did not cite Mr. Landrum for speeding.
This sounds like the classic case of "DWB": "Driving While Black." Black men are pulled over, grilled and searched, and then cited for whatever the officer can find. In Irvin's case, it was for no driver's license and no registration. But if Irvin was pulled over for speeding, why wasn't he cited for speeding? Are not such speeding tickets an important source of revenue for the City of Claremont?
More importantly, as noted earlier, Irvin was driving his new car, and the registration was in the window.
Finally, we have not seen any citation issued to Irvin for any reason on the night that he was shot by Claremont Police Officers. Our request for a copy of the citation, and the citations issued immediately before and after (to verify when Irvin's citation was issued), has not been answered.
The officer called for a backup so he could search Mr. Landrum's car as was offered. Calling for a back up on a vehicle search is standard procedure. When the backup unit arrived, the officer started to pat down Mr. Landrum for weapons, in accordance with standard procedure. Mr. Landrum stepped back, drew a revolver from his waist band, pointed the weapon at the officers and yelled, "You're both dead." The officers immediately began to retreat, pulling their guns and firing in fear of their lives.
The City of Claremont wants us to believe that Irvin "offered" to have his car searched. We cannot imagine why Irvin would make such an offer; nor can we imagine why an officer would accept such an offer. Please put yourself in that situation: would you offer to have your car searched (at 1:00 a.m.), without any provocation? And, if you were a police officer, and had cited someone for not having a driver's license, would you actually search someone's car if they had offered to have it searched? We imagine that under such a circumstance, the average officer would say, "That's OK, sir, you may go." Instead, the stopping and searching of Irvin and his car should be viewed as "standard procedure" when it comes to Black men driving a new car late at night through a predominantly upper class White neighborhood.
Although we are uncertain of the "standard procedure" for patting down a person being searched, we doubt that it is done when the searcher is in front of the person being searched. Indeed, it would seem more "standard practice" to search someone from behind ("Put your hands on the hood of the car!"). This is a much safer procedure for the person doing the searching, just in case the person is armed. So, how could Irvin "take two steps back" if, in fact, he was being "patted down" by the Claremont City Police? Would he not take two steps back right onto the toes of the person doing the search?
Still, the City wishes us to believe that Irvin pulled a gun from his waist band and yelled, "You're both dead." This statement by the City of Claremont is a sin of omission. The fact of the matter is that the officers told the Sheirff's investigators that Irvin pulled a gun and shot at them--they heard the gun shot and saw the muzzle flash. But this extremely important detail is left out of the City's "Fact Sheet," perhaps because subsequent analysis demonstrated that the gun found at Irvin's side had not been shot; nor were any fingerprints found on the weapon (or its bullets) indicating that it had been handled by Irvin or anyone else. The gun had been wiped clean..
As is Claremont's standard practice, immediately following the incident, the Sheriff's Department was called in to investigate the shooting. Having the Sheriffs Department investigate provides an independent review.
We are interested in knowing the history of Sheriff Department reviews, and to verify the extent to which it really is "standard practice." Their report was written two months after the killing.
Fact Sheet Landrum Incident
Page 2 of 2
At the Police Department's request, the Sheriffs Department submitted its report to the District Attorney's office for review. The FBI also investigated the incident as a result of the Landrum family filing a case with the United States Department of Justice. The City is cooperating with the Federal agencies, and in fact welcomes their review.
It seems rather incredible that The City would "welcome" the review by the FBI. Their every communication with us has been to quelch inquiry and to support the officers' version of the events of January 11, 1999. We have asked the City of Claremont to provide us with statistics on their officer-involved shootings over the past ten years. We are awaiting an answer. As with everything else, we doubt the veracity of the City of Claremont's version of events, and would want the City to prove that the submission of the Sheriffs Department report was submitted to the District Attorney "At the Police Department's request."
The Landrum Family has raised a concern that there were no discernable finger prints found on Mr. Landrum's weapon. This is not unusual. In fact, a study by finger print experts reports that fingerprints are found on guns less than 10% of the time. Two fingerprint specialists for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently published an article detailing their exhaustive study of why fingerprints are not found on firearms. Over a two and one half year period, they examined 1,000 firearms and found fingerprints on only 93 of them, less than 10%.
This statement is another deliberate attempt to mislead. First, 114 "identifiable latent prints" were developed on the 93 firearms. The article does not deal with the percentage of firearms that have "unidentifiable" prints or smudges. We suspect the presence of the latter to be much higher. In the case of the gun allegedly used by Irvin, no "identifiable prints" or "smudges" were found. The article ("Factors Affecting the Recovery of Latent Prints on Firearms" by Clive A. Barnum and Darrell R. Klasey, Journal of Forensic Identification, Volume 47 (2), 1997, pp. 140-147) goes on to give the reasons why the percentage of identifiable prints is so low: (1) the "Life of latent prints" is limited--some of the 1000 guns examined by the authors of the article may have been touched years before the attempt to extract prints; (2) "Atmospheric conditions" may degrade fingerprints, such as wind, air temperature, temperature of the surface receiving the latent print (if very hot or cold), high or low humidity, and rain, dew or snow; (3) "Environmental factors," such as placing the firearm in holsters, in the waist-band of trousers, between car seats and under mattresses may cause the prints to rub off; (4) "Damage of friction ridge skin" may prevent the leaving of prints; (5) "Perspiration ...is the main factor bearing on the identificability of latent prints....When sufficient perspiration accumulates on the skin, it should yield a clear impression to which developing reagents will adhere. The anxiousness or nervousness of the individual may also have an affect on the secretion of perspiration through the pores" (Barnum & Klasey, 1997, pp. 143-144); (6) "Processing problems" such as the condition and surface of the metal, the way the evidence is handled; (7) "Firearm finishes" such as "...a matte non-glare finish" and "teflon" are resistant to prints [we have been refused an opportunity to view the alleged weapon]; (8) "packaging the firearm" for crime laboratory examination may be improperly done. In summary, the City of Claremont's "Fact Sheet" does not correctly report that "identifiable" prints were found on only 10% of the weapons examined; nor does it report the myriad reasons why the percentage is so low. As far as we know, none of the reasons that degrade identifiable fingerprint recovery applied to the gun allegedly used by Irvin. The Sheriff's Department report noted that "Officer Hanna said that the suspect appeared to be nervous. His opion was based on the suspect's voice and expression on his face" (p. 4). From this, we surmise that Irvin would have excreted additional perspiration which would have enhanced the leaving of latent fingerprints on any metallic surfaces.
Both officers are cooperating with the investigations. The back up officer did not initially give a statement to the Sheriffs Investigators on the advice of his attorney. He has since given a statement as part of the internal investigation. The statement has been turned over to the District Attorney's office for review.
To not give a statement in fear of self-incrimination is everyone's Constitutional right, and we should not infer guilt due to the invocation of such a right. However, we are very curious about the advice given by the officer's attorney, and we are even more interested in the statement that has been given as part of the "internal investigation." We want to know when the statement was given and what it said. Moreover, we have concerns that a statement given as part of an "internal investigation" cannot be objective, by definition. That is, such statements must be obtained by an independent agency, such as a special prosecutor.
Both officers have returned to work after taking some administrative leave to spend time with their wives and children and prepare for the demands their jobs put on them daily. They did what they are trained to do, defend themselves. They have spent time with professionals who have helped them work through the incident and have found there is no reason for either officer to be taken off work.
Our theory does not include "first degree murder." We do feel that criminal culpability exists, however. Moreover, if the officers reported "hearing a gun shot" and "seeing a muzzle flash" from the gun allegedly used by Irvin, then either both were lying, or both were hallucinating. In either case, we question whether they should be allowed to continue on street patrol.
As expressed by Mayor Rosenthal and council members on several occasions, this is a difficult time for all the individuals and their families who are involved.
It is a difficult time. But it is most difficult for those who knew Irvin to be a good son, a hard worker, and a devoted father. Irvin Landrum, Jr. is dead; the officers who killed him are continuing to patrol the streets, carrying the same guns (presumably) that they used on this young man who was loved by his year-old son, his mother, and his friends and relatives. The family has not received an apology or words of condolences from the Mayor or members of the City Council of Claremont.
We continue to believe that the officers of the Claremont Police Department have acted and continue to act in a professional manner and that this will be supported when all the investigations are formally concluded.
As we gather information about this case, an unusual number of Claremont residents have testified to the very unprofessional conduct of at least one of the officers involved in the killing of Irvin. We have reports that one of the officers invaded the home of an African American family, telling the family that he would shoot the African American male child if he ran away from him. We know of an African American male professor at the Claremont Colleges who is routinely stopped and questioned for simply walking down the street; on at least one occasion, this professor was stopped at gunpoint.
This 'debunking" document was produced by Halford H. Fairchild in consultation with Obee Landrum. Items in red ink are from the "Fact Sheet" published by the City of Claremont, and are reproduced in their totality.
http://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/download.cfm?ID=17551
Settlement reached in Landrum lawsuit (April 2003)
Claremont, CA – A settlement has been reached in the civil lawsuit brought against the City of Claremont by the relatives of Irvin Landrum, Jr., who died after being shot by two Claremont police officers in January 1999.
A total of $450,000 will be divided among Landrum’s mother, Tracy Lee, and his two minor children, Tyrie Robinson and Faith Ramirez. Fees and costs of the attorneys representing Lee and the children will be paid from the total amount. Per state law, the attorneys in this case will receive 25 percent of the settlement amount as their fee, plus any costs they have incurred.
According to the terms of the settlement, the money will be divided equally between Lee and the two children. Ms. Lee will receive a lump sum payment while the children’s payment will be structured as follows:
$10,000 in past child support to their legal guardian;
funding of an annuity that will provide each child with approximately $300 per month in child support, payable to their legal guardian, until their 18th birthday, and;
funding of an annuity that will pay each child $33,000 per year for four years beginning on their 18th birthday. There are no restrictions on how this money is to be used by each child but the judge indicated he would like to see it used to pay for a college education.
“The shooting of Irvin was a tragic event for everyone involved: the Landrum family; the police officers, Jacks and Hanna; and the entire community of Claremont,” said Sandy Baldonado, mayor pro tem of Claremont. “We recognize that no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a son and a father. Throughout the settlement process the City has been primarily focused on providing financially for Irvin’s children.”
The settlement involves no admission of guilt by the City. An independent investigation of the shooting by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and subsequent review by the L.A. County District Attorney found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the two Claremont officers.
The settlement will not become final until the claims committee of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, the entity responsible for settling the claim, approves the terms, which is expected to take place in late May.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)