Reflections on the Landrum shooting

Reporting on the 10 year anniversary of the Landrum shooting was in some way a very difficult story to cover.

The incident was so emotional and disturbing for a community that always seems to strive for perfection.

One reason the Landrum incident was so distressing was that the event exposed some of the hidden imperfections within the city that nobody wanted to acknowledge or even knew existed. Imperfections like transparency in government and how city leaders should respond when faced with a real crisis.

The fact is, nobody truly knows what happened that night 10 years ago, except Officers Kent Jacks and Hany Hanna, who were involved the shooting. Everyone else was just caught up in the aftermath.

I interviewed Karen Rosenthal, who was not mayor when the incident happened but was throughout much of the aftermath. As the voice of the city, Rosenthal was certainly in a difficult position and struggled with being thrown into that role during the crisis.

Rosenthal cried while I interviewed her. Her emotions, which still exist today, personify how lasting an impact the incident had on the community, and all the raw emotions that it invoked.

The greatest criticism of Rosenthal throughout the aftermath was for being insensitive to Landrum and his family and making public statements about his character and personal life that many felt were irrelevant.

Does it matter that he fathered 2 children to 2 different women at the age of 18, as she brought up during our interview? Even going so far as to call him a “rapist, by the legal definition” because the women were underage.

I don’t think so. The young man died under circumstance that could possibly have been avoided. His personal life, aside from any criminal record that he may have had, should not be judged or criticized.

By bringing up these points in public and in statements to the media, along with her "dripping contempt she showed for protesters at public meetings", as one observer noted, Rosenthal made herself appear callous, and likely cost her another term on the council.

When Glenn Southard named the officers Employees of the Year award and released the criminal record of Obee Landrum, he displayed his intent to take an extremely defensive stance over the issue. This did not sit well with those close to him and observers in the community.

With all the poor decisions that he made during the crisis, it calls to question his decision-making abilities on other, less important issues. The city of Claremont may very well be better off without him.

As far as the police, it's hard to say if racial profiling was ever an unwritten policy or a regular practice. Councilmember Sam Pedroza once said after doing a ride-along with police that he felt it was more profiling based on the type of car rather than who was inside.

Regardless, "perception often makes something a reality", as another observer noted. And there was certainly the perception in the community that racial profiling was a very real thing amongst the police. The Police Department was forced to react to that perception and made positive steps to re-building its standing in the community.

Has the city moved on? Yes. Is Claremont a better place? I certainly think so.

Claremont’s civil society rallied to improve on its weaknesses. Let’s hope that if another crisis hits this city, that we will respond better in the future.