“The investigation established that the unsafe conduct persisted not simply because a small group of officers engaged in it, but because opportunities for intervention, reporting, supervision, and organizational correction failed over an extended period,” the report states.
The Sept. 7, 2025, shooting occurred during shift change when one officer drew his firearm and pointed it at another officer in the station garage before reholstering it.
The second officer, seated in a patrol vehicle, mimicked the action but unintentionally fired, striking the first officer in the shoulder, according to the assessment.
The subsequent investigation uncovered similar weapons-related recklessness over several years involving a handful of employees.
Independent Police Auditor Teresa Magula found the department’s administrative investigation generally fair and its disciplinary findings supported by evidence, but identified gaps in how officials examined the conditions that allowed the conduct to persist.
The department sustained allegations against three officers involving unsafe firearm handling, conduct and failures to report or intervene. Magula found their discipline commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations. The assessment does not specify the penalties.
Allegations against a fourth officer involving failure to intervene and false or misleading statements were deemed unfounded. No discipline was imposed.
Investigators interviewed more than 20 witnesses and examined vehicle recordings, body-worn camera footage and other evidence. A Use of Force Review Board considered the investigation Jan. 28, about four months after the shooting — a timeline the auditor called commendable.
However, the assessment questioned why accountability remained limited to four subject officers despite evidence that other employees had witnessed unsafe conduct without formally reporting it.
Some officers described avoiding the group, confronting participants or discouraging the behavior. None had formally reported it through their chain of command, according to the report.
Supervisors denied knowing officers were pointing guns at one another, and investigators found no evidence establishing otherwise. Still, the auditor said the review should have examined whether warning signs warranted earlier supervisory attention.
Department leaders told the auditor they chose to address broader concerns as organizational and cultural issues rather than pursue additional individual allegations. Those decisions and plans were not documented in the investigative file.
The department reported that corrective steps had already begun, including communications from Chief Eugene Harris during roll calls and briefings.
Magula also criticized the widespread use of “horseplay” to describe the conduct, saying the term risks minimizing repeated violations of basic firearm safety.
“While we use the term for consistency with the investigative record and acknowledge that it is used in Department policy, we, like others, are concerned that it inappropriately minimizes the seriousness of the behavior. In common usage, ‘horseplay’ suggests joking or immature conduct that is fundamentally harmless. The conduct revealed by this investigation was substantially more serious and ultimately resulted in an officer being shot.”
Magula said the OIR Group is particularly concerned that the term was adopted at every level of discussion surrounding the incident, including by department leadership.
“The language used by leaders matters,” she wrote. “It shapes how personnel understand organizational expectations and influences how the public perceives the seriousness of misconduct. While the individuals involved may have viewed the conduct as joking or pranking, describing it as ‘horseplay’ risks understating behavior that constituted unsafe firearm handling and repeated violations of core safety standards.”
According to the independent police auditor, multiple stakeholders expressed concerns about the term during the review.
“We simply note that terminology matters. In cases involving conduct of this magnitude, leaders should strive to use language that accurately conveys the seriousness of the behavior while avoiding terms that may reasonably be perceived as minimizing the underlying misconduct.”
The assessment supported the department’s characterization of the discharge as accidental because evidence showed the firing was unintended. It also found the delayed release of incident video fell within the department’s discretion, while encouraging disclosure when reasonably possible.
The auditor recommended documenting major investigative decisions, reinforcing reporting and intervention requirements, strengthening an early intervention system and exploring periodic body-worn camera reviews.
As of the Sept. 29 report, a district attorney’s decision on the criminal matter remained pending. A separate internal investigation into related unsafe conduct also remained open.
The commission meets at 6 p.m. Thursday in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 N. Garfield Ave.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
