_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________

Socialize

Barrows Alleged Assault Case Headed to DA’s Office Hearing Program-LCCN Publishes Police Report

The police report can be found at the end of this article.

By Brian Hews

 

The Los Angeles County District Attorney has decided not to seek charges against Cerritos Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Barrows after an alleged altercation involving resident and city council critic Jay Gray, but the embattled official is not out of the crosshairs of legal authorities.

Mario Trujillo, Assistant District Attorney confirmed to Los Cerritos Community Newspaper on Monday afternoon that his office will not move forward on the matter after Gray filed a “failure to prosecute” procedure last Friday.

“The District Attorney will not file charges against Mayor pro tem Bruce Barrows,” Trujillo told LCCN.

 

“The DA will refer the case per policy to a Office Hearing Program. The case will  be handled internally and informally in our office,” stressed Trujillo.

According to one website, Open Hearing is an administrative hearing that is conducted as an alternative to a misdemeanor criminal prosecution in Los Angeles County. The City Attorney Hearing Program is used as an alternative to criminal prosecution. A hearing officer (not an attorney) conducts this type of administrative hearing and there is no judge or jury present at the hearing. Witnesses for the defendant and or the alleged victim may testify at the hearing. Evidence presented by either side is considered by the hearing officer. At the end of the hearing, the hearing officer will determine whether to recommend to the City Attorney to proceed with criminal prosecution, dismiss the matter, or the hearing officer could leave the case open for one year before completely closing out the criminal case.

Gray and Barrows went head to head in a heated exchange at the Monday June 4 Cerritos City Council Meeting during public comments. Barrows said he was “defending the honor of his wife Teresa.”

Gray said the he was a “victim of assault” and that Barrows needs to admit “the truth” to “himself” and “the community.”

Cerritos resident Chris Fuentes lashed out at Barrows at the meeting and demanded the city council to “take action against Mayor Pro Tem Barrows.”

Barrows lashed out at the coverage of Los Cerritos Community Newspaper during the public comment section of the meeting.

No formal action was taken against Barrows by city council members, and it is unclear if the matter will resurface during a future meeting.

Copy of police report

 

 

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

11 Responses to Barrows Alleged Assault Case Headed to DA’s Office Hearing Program-LCCN Publishes Police Report

  1. Cheryl Reply

    June 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    I really hope this is not going to be covered up and forgotten. He is going to be our next mayor and he acts in a manner that is unacceptable and a very poor example for our youth. It doesn’t matter if a code was broken what matters is moral behavoir and Mr. Barrows showed a lack of it.

  2. BARROWSGATE COVERUP & CONSPIRACY! Reply

    June 18, 2012 at 8:03 am

    No matter how Barrows’ apologist Res Ipsa spins the situation the real question is:
    Q: WHAT DID BARROWS DO AND WHEN DID HE DO IT.

    A: Barrows 1.) Sought out Gray AFTER an official City Council Budget session.
    2.) Barrows FIRST called Gray A$$H@le BEFORE Grays remarks back.
    3.) Barrows GRABBED and PUSHED Gray in his own words/account.

    So BLAME THE PAPER/MEDIA, BLAME GRAY, BLAME BARROWS HIGH SUGAR DIET.

    But the FACTS are PLAIN. Bruce Barrows REFUSES to accept responsibility for his outrageous, reprehensible and OUT OF CONTROL BEHAVIOR.

    The Coverup and Conspiracy are; WHERE is the Police Report on the EYE WITNESS to Barrows actions? IS the published police report the SAME report that was written by the interviewing officer? WHY was Barrows allowed to ‘phone in’ his version. Is this standard operating procedure for person(s) accused of a crime? WHY IS THE CERRITOS SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT WITHHOLDING INFORMATION?

  3. John B. Greet Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    This may also be considered hair-splitting, but several have tossed about the term “assault” and accused Barrows of having committed that crime.

    When discussing criminal acts we must look to the penal code, not the dictionary, for appropriate definitions.

    In the penal code, an assualt is defined as “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”

    In essence, an assault is an attempted battery (swing fist at another and miss, striking nothing.)

    If the assault is successful (swing fist at another and connect) then the crime generally becomes “battery” which is defined as “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”

    The police report clearly mentions the phrase “battery (Viol. of 242PC)” because that is the crime that Gray wanted Barrows arrested for. Barrows, in turn, “was desirous of prosecution on s/v Gray for disturbing his peace by making comments about s/v Barrow’s wife.”

    I believe the notation “s/v” may stand for “suspect/victim” because the report writer was seeking to convey that both Barrows and Gray were claiming to be victims and also alleging that one another were suspects.

  4. BARROWS ADMITS ASSAULT IN HIS OWN WORDS! Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    assault [əˈsɔːlt]
    n
    1. a violent attack, either physical or verbal
    2. (Law) Law an intentional or reckless act that causes another person to expect to be subjected to immediate and unlawful violence Compare battery [4] assault and battery

    BARROWS ADMITS Assaulting Gray in the Official Police Report, In Barrow’s OWN WORDS and then he LIED ABOUT IT in a public city council meeting?

    Not ONE Cerritos City Councilmember had the decency to call Barrows out on his assault even though they were privy to the police report of the incident.

    CONSPIRACY AND COVERUP !

    • Brian Hews Reply

      June 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm

      Thanks for your comment!

    • Res Ipsa Reply

      June 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      You are incorrect. Mr. Barrows stated during the council meeting that he pushed Mr. Gray, which is what the police report states. Mr. Gray’s version of events states this as well.

      What I find interesting about the reporting here however, is that no one has mentioned the violation comitted by Mr. Gray, namely CA Penal Code 415(3). Mr. Grays statement is a textbook violation of this section, and is also a misdemeanor. So if this story is going to be factually reported, why is there no mention of the fact that Mr. Gray also violated the law during this sequence of events and did so prior to the actions of Mr. Barrows?

      And again, why the continued use of the word felony? The use of this word, now that the remainder of the information is out, invites a serious degree of liability for both the reporter and this paper due to the false light that it creates. This is especially the case given the several factual errors that have been present in this chain of articles.

      Can you explain Mr. Hews, A) why this word was used in the first place, and B) why is is being repeated in subsequent articles despite the fact that this paper was put on notice that there is no evidence to support such a claim?

      • Brian Hews Reply

        June 15, 2012 at 2:28 pm

        So you are saying Gray cursed at the meeting. Where is the proof. Please forward to us, we will gladly publish.
        I HIGHLY doubt Mr. Gray cursed on TV the night before he was running for the WCBWD seat, political suicide.

        I want to thank you for pointing out the Penal code section 415(3), a copy is below. We will point that out in our next article because Mr. Barrows obviously violated the code too, we know that for a fact, while we await your proof Mr. Gray cursed.

        Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment
        in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of
        not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment
        and fine:
        (1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
        challenges another person in a public place to fight.
        (2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
        person by loud and unreasonable noise.
        (3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
        are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

        • Res Ipsa Reply

          June 15, 2012 at 3:19 pm

          No Mr. Hews, I did not say that Mr. Gray cursed at the meeting. What I did say is that his comment regarding the wife of Mr. Barrows is a textbook violation of PC 415(3). Furthermore you are incorrect in stating that Mr. Barrows violated this section. There is a legal distinction between battery and unlawful fighting (which is why they are two separate crimes within the code). None of the actions of Mr. Barrows constitute unlawful fighting so its inappropriate at best for you to infer that he violated this statute.

          However since you are receptive to correcting incorrect statements will you remove statements referencing felony charges as well as the quote “defending the honor of his wife Teresa” as neither are factual or true?

  5. Joan W. Reply

    June 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    Thank you for the police report. May I repeat, our council members should behave like ladies and gentlemen and be in control of themselves (especially in public) at all times.
    Sadly, according to the police report,Bruce Barrows is an “out of control” councilman. Bruce it is time for you to resign.

  6. Res Ipsa Reply

    June 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    I renew my previous comment. Mr. Gray’s statement alleges that Mr. Barrows pushed him in the shoulder and grabbed his shirt. If we disregard everything that Mr. Barrows has said and take Mr. Gray’s statement as 100% true, that doesn’t rise anywhere near the level of a felony in any jurisdiction that I know of, let alone here. So once again I ask, why does the word ‘felony’ appear in this article.

Leave a Reply to Joan W. Cancel reply