I wasn’t reading really closely, but I remember him mentioning video of the incident in question.
If there wasn’t a reason to rough the guy up, then it was RIGHT of him to report the one who did it. If there was a reason, then the officer should have had no trouble explaining what had happened. But at least from what this guy said (which I realize is only half the story), it sounded like they didn’t really even bother to check into it but called him a “bully” and got rid of him because they didn’t want accountability.
As with every place, there are conscientious people and corrupt people, all together. What I most recently know about the LAPD is that an LAPD officer lied his butt off regarding the arsenic poisioning of Michael Cormier, a technician at the LA County Coroner’s Office who died the day that Breitbart’s autopsy was released, after being poisoned by arsenic 2 days earlier. Though arsenic poisoning leaves the ability to track down the perpetrator relatively easily, the LAPD did not investigate the leads that would have been available immediately. When a possible connection with Breitbart’s autopsy was raised, the LAPD cop stepped in to try to make it seem like Cormier really wasn’t poisoned - that the doctors thought it was a perforated bowel (a rapidly-fatal condition if untreated) so they sent him home at first. The fact that the poisoner did the poisoning in such an obvious way, as if they knew the police wouldn’t investigate.... followed by the police not investigating..... suggests more to the story. It suggests that the cops were in with the bad guys who poisoned Cormier. The lies to cover up what really happened seem to corroborate that appearance.
It sounds to me like this guy (Cormer?) believed that the only way to speak loud enough for anybody to confront a culture of corruption was by drawing a lot of blood.
A good question that could be asked is, “What - besides a lot of blood - WOULD confront the culture of corruption, if one exists at the LAPD? What were the legitimate means for a whistleblower there, that make “alternative” violent means unnecessary? (Not that I’m justifying the violent means, just that I’m trying to hear what the guy was actually saying, in the interest of keeping this from happening again, either there or elsewhere).