Cerritos Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Barrrows said on Monday that he was "defending the honor of his wife" after an altercation with resident Jay Gray
Updated at 8:10 p.m.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney has decided not to seek felony charges against Cerritos Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Barrows after an alleged altercation involving resident and city council critic Jay Gray.
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 will be handled internally and informally in our office,” stressed Trujillo.
Gray and Barrows went head to head in a heated exchange at Monday’s 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.”
Los Cerritos Community Newspaper will continue to update this developing situation.
Cerritos Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Barrows comes under fire.
Shoddy reporting at best, libelous at worst. Mr. Gray’s version of the events, even if taken as 100% true, don’t rise to the level of felony assault. Thats why you wont find any statement by the DA that says they were considering a felony charge in the first place. It would be very ironic if the author were to find himself in an actual legal quagmire because of this continued reckless and factually incorrect reporting.
Mr. Res:
We have the police report. Wait until this Friday. On another note, if I read your comment correctly, it is ok for you that a public servant can verbally abuse and accost a concerned resident?
Then you didn’t read my comment correctly. I’m not addressing the actions of Mr. Barrows or Mr. Gray. I’m addressing the language in the article. The california legislature has statutorily defined when a battery and/or assault rises to the level of a felony, and neither version of events does so. So unless you can point to documentation that shows one of these parties suffered or even alleged to have suffered a loss of consciousness, concussion, bone fracture, loss of organ function, disfigurement, or any wound requiring suturing, throwing around the word ‘felony’ is not warranted at all. So I’m sitting here wondering why I see it on the page.
In my opinion, it is never acceptable for any elected official to verbally abuse, or resort to physical force against, any community member except in clear self defense.
When Barrows shoved Gray, he was wrong.
The force that Barrows has admitted to using would normally only amount to a misdemeanor battery (242 PC: Unlawful use of force against the person of another.)
The D.A. prosecutes felonies, not misdemeanors, so perhaps there were additional allegations of which we have not yet been made aware? We know that Gray made additional accusations (beyond the shoulder shove) against Barrows because the Press Telegram story dated 6/5/12 states:
“Barrows denied allegations by Gray that he had made other physical contact.”
Looking forward to the follow-up story for additional information!
I am looking to read to read the follow up story as well. In the meantime, perhaps the author or publisher could explain why the councilman is being misquoted here.
Mr Res:
Follow up story online and police report online now.
Mr. Greet:
The DA has an entire team dedicated to prosecuting misdemeanors, we just confirmed that with local law enforcement
Then I admittedly stand corrected in this case. In my city, Long Beach, the City Prosecutor handles misdemeanors, and the D.A. handles felonies. Thank you for the correction.
Mr. Hews. Since it appears you work for this paper in some capacity can you explain why the quote “defending the honor of his wife Teresa” is being attributed to Mr. Barrows? That statement was never made by him. This can be verified by the video recording of the council meeting. If it is simply meant to paraphrase what was said, then why is it placed in quotes as if to indicate it was spoken verbatim? More importantly, the wife of Mr. Barrows was never referred to by name at any time, by any party, during the council meeting. Why did the reporter print her name here and is this not an invasion of privacy? Does this paper not have a process to determine the veracity of the information being printed? If so, why was it not applied to this article?
by “concerned resident” I presume that you wish to imply that this person has not been verbally abusive to the elected official from the podium? Odd choice of words since so often you hear belligerent and downright insulting things thrown at elected officials. No excuse for such behavior from either side of the room.
PS you apparently don’t read well or you would have understood Res Ispa eloquent comment.