Trouble Brewing Among L.A. County Deputies

A power struggle within the union has left the rank and file with two presidents, two boards of directors and two "official" websites.

A power struggle has resulted in a split union for Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies. Patch file photo.
A power struggle has resulted in a split union for Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies. Patch file photo.

A high-stakes power struggle is underway within the union representing Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, leaving members with two presidents, two boards of directors and two "official" websites, it was reported today.

Trouble at the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs came to light last month when the board ousted Armando Macias, its newly elected president, citing his poor attendance, according to the Los Angeles Times. The board installed a new president, but Macias is refusing to recognize the ouster.

Now the two sides are accusing each other of illegitimate power grabs and misusing union funds, The Times reported. Macias was recently sued by his rivals, who accused him of improperly tapping into the union's political funds to pay for attorneys in his attempt to reclaim his leadership post.

For its part, Macias' camp recently unveiled its own website, declaring it the union's official website. At least two union officials have sided with Macias, who counters that he's being targeted by the union's "old guard" for demanding transparency in how union dues are spent.

Both sides contend the outcome could influence who becomes the next sheriff, as the union has yet to endorse a candidate in the upcoming election, The Times reported.

Macias' rivals say that the rightful president for the organization, which represents 7,200 deputies and district attorney investigators, is Don Jeffrey Steck. The group behind Steck says the ouster was legitimate but that Macias continued to insist he was in charge, showing up at the office, shouting down his opposition and sitting at the head of the conference table.

—City News Service
joebanana April 04, 2014 at 02:30 PM
This was a man camping alone, no danger to anybody, not a "wanted fugitive", and most definitely no threat to that armed gang of thugs, armed to the teeth, armor plating, assault weapons, night vision, infra-red scopes, heat-seeking laser guided RPG's, Vulcan mimi-guns on air support, along with hellfire missiles, and 50 cal. machine guns. Okay, maybe they didn't have hellfire's, but they came to kill something, and that they did. This isn't an isolated incident. This is commonplace in America, multiple times a day. 223 times for just that department since 2011.
art vandelay April 04, 2014 at 10:51 PM
Again, I don't condone shooting someone in the back. If that cop really went to work that day and thought I would love to kill someone for no reason, then I have no respect for him and he'll have to live with what he did. However, you don't know the whole story of why the cops were out there. You weren't out there so you don't know what they were thinking. If you have the whole video, I'd like to see it.
joebanana April 05, 2014 at 11:28 AM
But you DO condone shooting unarmed individuals? You have to admit the gang mentality of these murderers, was extremely disturbing. The man had a RIGHT to a fair trial and due process before being executed. These murderers clearly violated this mans constitutional rights, clearly murdered him in cold blood, and their criminally insane "chief" called it "justified". HOW IN THE HELL CAN THAT BE JUSTIFIED? The man was NO threat, whatsoever. The murderers were babbling something about a knife, but as with the Ernesto Duenez(?) where the cop was screaming like a banshee "to drop the knife" which was eventually found in the back of the truck, after mysteriously appearing. Meaning Ernie didn't have possession of it when he was assassinated by an out, CLEARLY out of control, insane man. I stand by my statement "police are a DANGER to the public". I've NEVER had reason to call the police for any reason, and I NEVER will, because they've been known to assassinate the caller, because they were "confused". Confused people with guns isn't a good combination. And when they DO wake up in the morning thinking "well if I do kill someone on my shift I'll get away with it no question". That was pretty much the "whole video". They woke the man up and murdered him. Obviously there were no extenuating circumstances, or it would have been part of the video. There are longer versions of it on You Tube, but they all show basically the same thing, a man getting murdered by out of control thugs, then being abused after the fact.
joebanana April 05, 2014 at 12:51 PM
It's obvious that they were thinking, there's no way this man is going to live. You could tell by their posturing. That was a dead man as soon as they got out of the car. They had beanbags and a dog, the assault rifle was for doing what they set out for, assassinating some vagrant on 'federal land", because they CAN. And get away with it. They knew their "chief" would find it "justified", just as the DA, review board, and internal affairs, would. And they'd get to kill another day.
joebanana April 05, 2014 at 06:45 PM
Here's another example of what I'm talking about.http://youtu.be/xUpJvosnS6o


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »