Heavy Collateral Damage in War on Crime? : Police: City Hall politicians think their constituents would rather look the other way as long as the LAPD is fighting real bad guys.

In the wake of the Rodney King controversy, Police Chief Daryl F. Gates and Los Angeles City Council members are taking sharply diverging paths toward the same end: political self-preservation. Gates came out swinging to save his job. Council members--many of them facing primary challengers Tuesday--initially came out silent on Gates’ tenure to preserve their own. The outrage they have finally shown has not been toward Gates but toward Mayor Tom Bradley and the Police Commission.

It took Bradley’s calling for Gates’ resignation and his commissioners suspending the chief for 60 days to provoke the council into a higher profile in the matter of the police beating of King.

“If we want to have a test of wills in this building about who runs the city,” Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky told reporters after the suspension, “I think you’re about to get your answer. It will be a very interesting civics lesson.” Even though Yaroslavsky and his council colleagues are finding a voice now, it remains one of reaction to Bradley and Gates. Uppermost in the council members’ minds in trying to head off Gates’ suspension is their constituents’ concern with crime, or more important, its effect on their political futures.

Someone unfamiliar with the City Hall power structure and its pervasive political pragmatism might have anticipated at least some degree of challenge of Gates from the City Council at its only face-to-face confrontation with the chief in late March. Certainly there were enough angry citizens there calling for Gates’ resignation. By the time of that meeting, members had seen the playing and replaying of the videotape of police beating King for nearly three weeks.

Throughout the chief’s 13-year tenure, they had heard what he himself described as “inelegant” comments about African-Americans--and just about everyone else different from himself--and paid millions of dollars in excessive-force damages. In fact, Gates was before the council that day to explain why the city had just authorized another $625,000 settlement.

That council members never specifically summoned Gates to explain the King case, however, should have been a clue to their reluctance to take on the chief. When Gates finally appeared, liberal and conservative council members alike went out of their way to preface even mild criticism with praise for the department and sympathy for the tough job its officers face. The fractious council had finally found something it could agree on--the political peril of even appearing to challenge the police chief, given the city’s current fear-of-crime climate and despite the King beating.

Many council members insist they’re only reflecting the views of a majority of their constituents, and there’s some validity to that. The most recent Times poll,, conducted last week, showed that only 27% of Los Angeles residents now believe that Gates should resign immediately over the King beating. That is a slight decrease from a poll three weeks ago in which 31% wanted him to go right away. Another 37% hedged by saying he should if his officers are found guilty. Many people still feel that protecting their civil liberties from police abuse is less immediately important than protecting their person and property from criminals.

In theory, they think the King beating was wrong. In practice, they’re willing to accept it as collateral damage in the war on crime.

Another reason cited for not challenging Gates is the fear that, despite the chief’s assertion to the contrary, he might punish a district whose representative challenges him by cutting police services. Special programs conducted in conjunction with his department--such as efforts to track down slumlords--could be discontinued and response to district needs could take longer.

“A lot of people want Gates to go, but an equal number are saying, ‘If beating a Rodney King helps the cops keep people from stealing my car stereo, I’ll look the other way,’ ” says a council aide. “They also don’t want their councilperson going after Gates if it in any way might hurt the delivery of police services to their neighborhood. It’s a real factor that we have to consider.”

But the fact that L.A. has a crime-harried populace and loose-cannon police chief should not reinforce council caution; it should instead hasten police-reform efforts. The explanations that council members give for inaction are really convenient canards to rationalize abdicating leadership. The real reason for their kid-glove handling of Gates has less to do with district interests and constituent safety than with their own interests and the safety of their incumbencies.

Council members don’t want Gates to retaliate with cuts in services--they don’t even want to give the appearance that they may have jeopardized those services--for fear that voters will voice their objection at the polls. Then there’s the potential loss of influential police endorsements. Despite his mishandling of the King beating, few politicians want Gates to endorse their opponent.

Leaders of the Police Protective League have also made it clear that they’re willing to fall on their swords for Gates on this issue, so there’s the risk of losing that endorsement. Without police backing, an incumbent is “soft on crime.” If you’re soft on crime, you may soon be out of office.

In the eyes of most council members, these political disadvantages far outweigh the benefits gained by siding with the American Civil Liberties Union or any of the myriad other groups who have demanded Gates be fired. So intimidating is the threat of backlash that none of the council incumbents now facing reelection, liberal or conservative, have called for Gates’ head. Ironically, they include representatives of communities where complaints of excessive force and slow police response have been most common.

South-Central Councilman Nate Holden has been uncharacteristically quiet, even though he once was pulled over by a LAPD officer who said he thought Holden might be a bank robber. Residents of Crenshaw-Baldwin Hills have been left without a voice in the debate because Ruth Galanter is fence-sitting during her reelection bid. Richard Alatorre, now the council’s only Latino, says Gates should not be targeted, as does Joel Wachs. Hal Bernson supports Gates, as has John Ferraro, running unopposed.

Just three council members have come close to publicly questioning if Gates should step down. Marvin Braude said he’s “deeply concerned with Chief Gates’ assessment that the beating represented a mere aberration,” but added, “I am not demanding his resignation at this time.” Yaroslavsky stated that “the chief should retire in August, when he turns 65.”

Only Mike Woo has specifically said that “the time has come for Chief Gates to resign,” and that if Gates refuses, “the Police Commission should initiate proceedings to dismiss him.” Unfortunately, the mayoral aspirant’s announcement also seemed politically motivated. Woo has used the issue to meet with African-American and Latino leaders whose support he would need in a 1993 mayoral run, especially since he has probably sacrificed police backing.

Woo, like his fellow council members, is primarily out “to protect and to serve” his personal political fortunes. There is, of course, no way of knowing how this issue will play out, but it’s clear that for this political year, the police, not the council, are in command.