See the video here of Mayor pro tem Barrows contradicting his statements in his police report.
By Brian Hews
In Council comments at the end of the June 11, 2012 Cerritos City Council meeting, Mayor pro tem Bruce Barrows contradicted his own statements to the sheriffs the night he was involved in an alleged assault during a June 4 incident between himself and Cerritos resident Jay Gray.
In Barrows’ comments at the June 11, 2012 meeting the embattled Barrows said “Gray made some extremely offensive comments about my wife and that is when I called him a**hole.”
According to the police report, obtained and published by Los Cerritos Community Newspaper on Friday, Barrows said that during an argument with Gray outside Chambers, he got angry and called Gray an a**hole.
Barrows stated after he called Gray an a**hole, Gray responded by saying “your may think I am a**hole, but your wife thinks I am fine”, thus contradicting his own statements to the Sheriff.
Barrows went on to say in his council comments, “That was the extent of language used, beyond that I walked out the door comments were made about my wife I stepped back and for that I do apologize for bringing the city into this but there was never the things that were mentioned in the paper (LCCN) happened.”
In the police report, Barrows said “the comments about his wife made him so angry that he lost control. (Barrows) then walked toward Gray and pushed him on the shoulder with his hand, (Barrows) realized he should control himself and walked away from Gray. Barrows again failed to mention in his Council comments that he did assault Gray when it was clear in his statement to the sheriff that he did assault Gray.
LCCN attempted to contact Barrows for comment but he did not respond.
I am beginning to wonder about the intent and professionalism of this news organization. This is at least the 3rd article in which Mr. Barrows has been misquoted, and the 2nd article in which you, Mr. Hews, have been the author responsible for the incorrect quotes.
Mr. Barrows never made the statement “Gray made some extremely offensive comments about my wife and that is when I called him a**hole”, as you have published here. The statement that he did make during the meeting was, “there were some extrememly offensive comments made about my wife and that was my response, and I did use a word that starts with an “A””.
Your quote is incorrect and makes it appear that Mr. Barrows was using profanity during a council meeting which is problematic in of itself. Creating this false inference runs the risk of being defamatory.
What I find most questionable, however, is that you are attacking Mr. Barrows for his alleged inconistencies, but you yourself have inconsistent statements between this article and the “publishers rant” you posted just yesterday. More importantly, you have yet to correct these statements despite the fact that A) you have the police report available to you to verify the correct statements and B) the inconsistencies have been pointed out to you. And this does not even account for other incorrect reporting such as listing the name of Mr. Barrows’ wife when it was never spoken, or describing one of the witnesses as an attorney when he is not.
How is it legitimate to call into question Mr. Barrows for any alleged inconsistencies when there have been so many printed here?
Mr. Res:
We took the quotes VERBATIM from the city of Cerritos video of Mr. Barrows statement June 11. We will post the video tomorrow.
We stand behind everything we print, the only mistake we made was the felony reference which we have corrected online.
I find your intentions of constantly calling this paper out highly suspect since you always login from cities other than Cerritos. You obviously do not live in Cerritos, so what’s your angle?
You very similar to other readers calling us out on the Assessor Noguez story when we first started publishing our findings, turns out we were correct, as we are with this story.
BTW we have called Barrows several times for comment with no call back so who is avoiding who?
It is all right here in the video, we even annotated the video for you.
http://youtu.be/XmcY3eU2Jhg
FACT: Nobody believed the LCCN when they published the story on L.A. County Tax Assessor Noguez but THEY PUBLISHED THE TRUTH ANYWAY…
Were it not for the courageous reporting of the LCCN and Randy Economy, this outrageous scandal would have gone on totally unrestrained.
FACT: Bruce Barrows was the provocateur in the attack on Jay Gray; BARROWS sought out Gray, BARROWS called Gray A$$Hol# and BARROWS physically assaulted Gray. Those are the FACTS.
Thank God for the GUTSY, CORAGEOUS, HONEST news reporting of Randy Economy and the Brilliance and Backbone of Publisher Brian Hews.
IF THERE WERE ANY JUSTICE BARROWS WOULD BE BEHIND BARS!
I confess Mr. Hews, I am quite confused. You state that you are quoting Mr. Barrows verbatim, but after watching the video of the city council meeting, Mr. Barrows did not make the statement that you printed above. At 26:13 on the videotape he clearly says, “there were some extrememly offensive comments made about my wife and that was my response, and I did use a word that starts with an “A””. This is not what you have printed above.
I am pleased to see you have acknowledged that using the term “felony” was an error. However as of this writing (9:29pm PST) your article titled “DA will not press charges against Cerritos Mayor pro tem Bruce Barrows; Case to be handled ‘informally and internally’” still uses the term ‘felony charges’.
I will have to disagree with you about this being your only mistake however. As I illustrated before, there are several incorrect statements that your paper has printed: printing the name of Mr. Barrows’ wife in a quote when it was never mentioned during the council meeting (a violation of journalistic ethics if I’m not mistaken), incorrectly quoting the comment Mr. Gray made to Mr. Barrows in your ‘publishers rant’, and stating that the witness to this incident is an attorney.
If you feel that I am ‘calling you out’ then let me offer my apologies as that has never been my intent. What I am seeking, or my ‘angle’ as you have referred to it, is the truth. This is something that can be found only through complete and total accuracy, and it knows no city or area code.
Of course, this begs the question of why, since you clearly have the time and resources to perform your due diligence on those who comment here, have you not done the same with the assertions in your articles. Seconds of searching on the California Bar website shows that the witness who claims to be an attorney is nowhere to be found. If he is lying about his status as an attorney, then that makes all of his assertions about this incident suspect, and any article publishing his statements suspect as well.
Please don’t misunderstand me Mr. Hews. I would never insist that a publication is responsible for the fabrications of others. I would merely suggest that a publication is only responsible for (and earns its reputation on) what it decides to print on the page. And as I have documented above, there are several issues in this series of articles which are not just questionable, but simply incorrect.
You make the call. Please get your facts straight it is clear that BArrows contradicted himself.
http://youtu.be/XmcY3eU2Jhg
Mr Ipsa:
If you are going to continue commenting we have to get your real name, your comments are bordering on the absurd. Any person can see what we wrote is what is in the video, Barrows contradicted himself. If your next comment does not have you name it will not be approved.
Not sure why the LCCN is after Bruce but so be it. Sure sure, violence is never the answer but it surely would not be the first time an idiot got a poke in the face for making disparaging remarks about another man’s wife. Why was this man hounding the councilman after a public meeting where he could of brought up the same questions in the public comments section or after a public hearing presentation. All sounds like a set up to me. But then again speak to the witness, the always reliable Mr. McMahon “attorney”???
You make the call. Barrows basically called us liars on TV.
http://youtu.be/XmcY3eU2Jhg
Barrows sought out Gray, after the council meeting. As Gray and McMahon were speaking inside the Council chamber Barrows called out and approached Gray. Gray and McMahon were speaking with Kang (from ABC) and Pulido (City Council)inside the council chambers.
The question, Bob, is why did the Councilman hound the resident after the meeting? When he could have brought up the same question/response during the public meeting and on the record. During Gray’s public comments at the next council meeting he stated that Barrows approached him and during Barrows response Barrows did not refute that claim. How well would Barrows do on a polygraph exam?
Did Barrows called Gray and A** hole in an effort to provoke Gray?
Let the voters ..decide and term limits ..No man is above the law .. Mr Gray and Mr. Barrows should
settle their differences private ..case closed..
Although I think your coverage of the Noguez story is an example of where we need professional journalism– which cannot be replaced by internet only anonymous sources, it seems that the ad hominem attacks on Res ipsa are not in line with high standard journalism. Attack Res Ipsa on the merits of the facts. Showing the whole video is a good start. But don’t attack Res Ipsa on a comparative inference to Noguez or random source of the e-mails geography. Even if I only hear one side in a case, I still like to think that the other side has a point of view as well- and I try (despite the absence of the person to argue their points) to consider what I can. Just my two cents.
Thank you Mr. Hews for posting the video. It will allow everyone the ability to compare what you wrote to what was said.
To that end will you now concede that you did not quote Mr. Barrows verbatim as you stated above. Its quite clear that the statement he made during the council meeting… “there were some extremely offensive comments made about my wife and that was my response, and I did use a word that starts with an “A””… is not the same as the quote you posted above, namely “Gray made some extremely offensive comments about my wife and that is when I called him a**hole.”
Further will you also concede that you improperly quoted Mr. Barrows when you printed the name of his wife, since its clear from the video you posted that her name was never mentioned.
Finally, since you stand behind everything you print, can you provide your readers with some evidence that the witness, whom your publication labeled as an attorney, is in fact one. I would assume that since you devoted an entire article to his version of these events that you did take the time to properly vet the veracity of his claims.
Hey Res Ipsa: What PLANET do you live on? Barrows needs to check into anger management and you need to get your head examined. You are living under a cloud and need to a reality check. Where did you get your law degree?
How can ANY PERSON defend the actions of Barrows. He said he did it.
Listen to his own words.
Get rid of Barrows, and any city staff member that tries to cover his sorry pathetic actions.
He has been a total disgrace for YEARS, all he cares about is being a big shot, traveling all over the world, and chasing his stupid trains.
Let’s RECALL him once and for all…
In defense of “ATTORNEY”. One does not have to be a member of the “California Bar” to be an attorney.
I do believe that Mr. Ernie Nishii, a very well respected attorney, will agree.
Let’s stop playing on words. Mr. Barrows admitted his guilt in the police report and should do the right thing and resign.
You are correct. There are many lawyers in california who are licensed elsewhere. However the problem with this witness is that according to this paper he has been a resident of cerritos for over 40 years. That makes it extremely implausible that he is an attorney. This combined with the fact that others have questioned his occupational status is more than enough reason for this paper to have performed their due dilligence to verify his claims.
The resident has a law degree (JD), he did not take the bar.
Then, as Mr. Nishii can confirm, he not an attorney. So that means either the witness is lying about his status, or this publication printed incorrect information. Can I ask, Mr. Hews, which of these options is correct?
Curious as why Res Ipsa is dancing around the alleged crime committed by a public official?
One would have to conclude that it’s not the newspaper’s credibility/reputation at stake here, but that of a public official who by his own admission verbally attacked a member of the community for the sole reason he did agree with with the guy.
In America one is entitled to speak their mind, without fear of verbal abuse from government officials. However, in communist China that may be a different story. Is it possible that after one travels too many times to communist China they forget how a democracy works?
I’m not aware of any dancing, nor of any cover up. In fact, I have not addressed the actions of either Mr. Barrows or Mr. Gray at all. Both individuals have made their statements about this incident and each member of the community will judge this as they see fit.
What I am concerned about however, are the numerous errors that have been printed throughout the coverage of this event and the seeming reluctance to acknowledge/correct them. Mr. Hews has already admitted that using the term “felony” was unwarranted and yet there is still an article here using this term.
At least three articles have improperly quoted the parties involved and this has not been addressed.
Finally, Mr. Hews has indicated that the individual who this publication described as “a main witness”, and devoted an entire article to, does not in fact “serve as an attorney at law”.
So my previous question, which I renew here, is did this witness lie to this publication about his status, or did this publication simply print further incorrect information?
Seems there is a bigger issue than the red herring Res Ipsa is trying to hook on his line. We have the Mayor Pro Tem involved in an alleged criminal act, a city council acting like brass monkeys (as another poster suggested) and he’s worried if a guy fluffed his reseume?
No matter what the paper published about the technicality of the law or what the witness’s job/education is the real issue still remains and that’s why did the Mayor Pro Tem verbally attacked a resident for absolutely NO apparent reason. Neither the police report nor the the videos posted justify the city official’s verbal attack.
City hall may want to brush this under the rug and certain posters my want to divert attention, but thankfully this local paper is creating a niche by going back to the basics and holding elected officials accountable for their actions.