The Danger of Seeing No Evil

When the state attorney general announced that he would not file charges of perjury or assault against San Diego police officers in the Sagon Penn case, he said: “It is time for the community to move on.”

That’s true. Three years of legal examination, including two trials, related to the shootings that killed Police Agent Thomas Riggs and wounded Agent Donovan Jacobs and a civilian observer are enough. Everyone involved, even Penn, says it would be fruitless to pursue criminal charges against Jacobs.

But, before Time can heal, the community needs strong evidence that the Police Department recognizes its weaknesses and is addressing them.

In his investigation of the Penn case, the attorney general found “legitimate cause to question the conduct and testimony of some officers.” Two juries and the judge who prompted the state investigation did also.

Police Chief Bill Kolender would have done well to admit no less. Instead, he called the attorney general’s report gratifying.

It hardly sounds gratifying when the state attorney general finds evidence that an officer used excessive force, and that the state declined to prosecute the police because conflicting witness accounts would mean relying heavily on Penn, who doesn’t want to testify and would be an extremely weak witness.

The finding that another officer’s “testimony raised significant questions about her veracity” offers little comfort either. Officer Jenny Castro had a transcript of a Police Academy counseling session prompted by Jacobs’ comment that he supported using epithets and aggression when confronted by minorities. But Castro said she forgot to give it to Kolender for eight months.

That no charges will be filed may be a relief, but it is a dangerously thin silver lining in the cloud that the Penn case has brought to the Police Department. If the chief hears what he wants to hear and believes what he wants to believe, then history is likely to repeat itself.

Providing a protective shield for his officers has its place, but his role requires some objectivity and calls for setting a high standard of credibility. He jeopardizes that credibility when he says that “the truthfulness and professionalism of members of the department have been upheld.”