
L.A. County to pay $2.7 million to teen assaulted in ‘gladiator fight'
Video of the December 2023 beating, captured on CCTV, showed Jose Rivas Barillas, then 16, being pummeled by six juveniles at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall as probation officers stood idly by. Each youth attacked Rivas Barillas for a few seconds before returning to breakfast. Two officers, later identified as longtime probation officials Taneha Brooks and Shawn Smyles, laughed and shook hands, encouraging the brawl.
'What made this unique is the video,' said Rivas Barillas' attorney, Jamal Tooson, who said his client suffered a broken nose and traumatic brain injury. 'The entire world got to witness the brutality that's taking place with our children at the hands of the Los Angeles County Probation Department.'
The video, first reported by The Times, prompted a criminal investigation by the state attorney general's office, which later charged 30 probation officers — including Brooks and Smyles — with allowing and encouraging fights among teens inside county juvenile halls. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta referred to the coordinated brawls as 'gladiator fights' and said his office's CCTV review had turned up 69 such fights during the chaotic first six months after the hall opened in July 2023.
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to approve the $2.67-million settlement to Rivas Barillas and his mother, Heidi Barillas Lemus.
According to a public summary of the 'corrective action plan' that the Probation Department must produce before a large settlement, officials failed to review CCTV video of the fight and waited too long to transport the teen to a hospital and notify his family.
CCTV monitors are now 'staffed routinely,' and officials are working on conducting random audits of the recordings, according to the plan. A spokesperson for the Probation Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Immediately after Rivas Barillas arrived at the Downey juvenile hall, Brooks demanded to know his gang affiliation, according to the claim filed with the county. Brooks said she had heard that Rivas Barillas, who is Latino, was from the 'Canoga' gang and that she 'hoped he could fight' before directing the other juveniles, all of whom were Black, to attack him in the day room, the claim stated.
After the video made headlines, accounts of teens forced by probation officers to fight have trickled out of Los Padrinos. A teen told The Times in March that officers at Los Padrinos rewarded him with a fast-food 'bounty' — In-N-Out, Jack in the Box, McDonald's — if he beat up kids who misbehaved. The teenager, who had previously been housed in the same unit as Rivas Barillas, said staffers would also organize fights when someone arrived who was thought to be affiliated with a gang that didn't get along with the youths inside.
'We get a new kid, he's from the hood. We have other hoods in here. We're going to get all the fights out of the way,' he said at the time. 'They were just setting it up to control the situation.'
Another teenager, identified in court filings as John (Lohjk) Doe, alleged in a lawsuit filed in February that soon after arriving at Los Padrinos in 2024, he was escorted by an officer to the day room. The officer, identified only by the surname Santos, told a youth inside the day room that 'you have eleven (11) seconds' and watched as the youth attacked Doe, according to the lawsuit.
On another occasion, the same officer threatened to pepper-spray Doe if he didn't fight another youth for 20 seconds. The teens who fought were rewarded with extra television and more time out of their cells, the suit alleged.
After the teen told a female officer about the two coordinated brawls, he was transferred to solitary confinement, the suit alleged.
Times staff writer James Queally contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What is the Mann Act? Here's what to know about the law used to convict Sean 'Diddy' Combs
Sean 'Diddy' Combs was convicted Wednesday of prostitution-related offenses under the federal Mann Act, an anti-sex trafficking law with a century-old history. Though he was acquitted of more serious charges, Combs was still convicted of flying people around the country, including his girlfriends and male sex workers, to engage in paid sexual encounters. Over the years, the law has been applied to prominent convictions, including R&B superstar R. Kelly, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, musician Chuck Berry and more than a century ago, boxer Jack Johnson. Its broad wording and a subsequent Supreme Court interpretation once allowed prosecutors to bring cases against interracial couples, and eventually many others in consensual relationships, according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute. The law was amended in the 1980s and today it is primarily used for prosecuting interstate prostitution crimes or people accused of taking underage children across state lines for sexual purposes. Here's what to know about the law. Why is it called the Mann Act? In 1910, Congress passed the bill, which was named after Republican U.S. Rep. James Robert Mann of Illinois. It's also known as the 'White-Slave Traffic Act' of 1910. How does it apply to Combs' case? Combs was convicted of counts involving two former girlfriends: the R&B singer Cassie and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane. Both women said at trial that Combs had pressured them into degrading sex marathons with strangers, who were paid for the sexual performances. Jane said she was once beaten by Combs for declining to participate. Cassie said that when she tried to walk out of one such event, Combs beat her and dragged her down a hotel hallway. Combs was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges but convicted of transporting people to engage in prostitution. What's the history behind it? The 1910 law originally prohibited the interstate or foreign commerce transport of 'any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.' It followed a 1907 congressionally appointed commission to look into the issue of immigrant sex workers, with the view that a girl would only enter prostitution if drugged or held captive, according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute. The law was used to secure a conviction against Jack Johnson, who became the first Black boxer to win a world heavyweight title in 1910. Johnson was convicted in 1913 by an all-white jury for traveling with his white girlfriend, who worked as a sex worker, in violation of the Mann Act. (President Donald Trump posthumously pardoned Johnson in 2018, saying Johnson had served 10 months in prison 'for what many view as a racially motivated injustice.') How has the law changed since 1910? In a 1917 Supreme Court case, the justices ruled that 'illicit fornication,' even when consensual, amounted to an "immoral purpose,' according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute. A 1986 update made the law gender-neutral and effectively ended the act's role in trying to legislate morality by changing 'debauchery' and 'immoral purpose' to 'any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.' The act received additional amendments in 1978 and 1994 to address issues of sexual exploitation of children. Nevertheless, Combs ' legal team made a motion last February to dismiss a Mann Act charge, writing that the law 'has a long and troubling history as a statute with racist origins." Prosecutors said there was nothing racist about pursuing charges under the act. Most of Combs' accusers are people of color.
![Why Sean Combs Was Never Going To Be Fully Held Accountable [Op-Ed]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsone.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F22%2F2017%2F12%2F15127414166521.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26strip%3Dall&w=3840&q=100)
![Why Sean Combs Was Never Going To Be Fully Held Accountable [Op-Ed]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblackamericaweb.com.png&w=48&q=75)
Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Why Sean Combs Was Never Going To Be Fully Held Accountable [Op-Ed]
Source: Neilson Barnard / Getty Over the coming days, there will be no shortage of commentary and debate about the split verdict in the Sean 'Diddy' Combs case. Cable news panels will argue over whether justice was served. Pundits will parse the difference between prostitution charges and sex trafficking. And social media will fill with memes, outrage, and hot takes about celebrity privilege, race, and misogyny. Some will call the partial conviction a victory for survivors. Others will say he got off easy. And some folks will invoke Bill Cosby and R. Kelly to say that rich Black men are always singled out for sexual crimes while white predators walk free. But there's a much bigger ideological and cultural backdrop here that shapes how a case like this gets prosecuted, adjudicated, and received. We are living through an era of reaction against women's rights and bodily autonomy. The last decade has seen the rolling back of Roe v. Wade , a fierce assault on contraception and gender-affirming care, and a mainstreaming of violent misogyny, from incel forums to the halls of government. Recall that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed despite credible allegations of sexual assault aired in nationally televised hearings. Our twice-impeached president, Donald Trump, was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in civil court, yet pays almost no political cost. Harvey Weinstein may be in prison, but countless other high-profile sexual assault cases have ended in acquittals or hung juries, from Bill Cosby's initial mistrial to Danny Masterson's first trial, to the repeated failures to secure convictions against powerful men. Cosby was freed on a technicality despite dozens of women accusing him of assault, highlighting how even convictions can be undone for powerful men. Even Jeffrey Epstein died before facing a full trial, while Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing is treated as a kind of closing chapter, leaving the network of clients untouched. Meanwhile, states pass forced-birth laws that deny even child rape victims abortions, and online influencers monetize misogyny, normalizing harassment, coercion, and rape as male entitlement. Taken together, all this produces a numbing effect. Source: Al Pereira / Getty When sexual violence is so widespread, so normalized, and so often excused or minimized at the highest levels of power, juries and the public become conditioned to see these crimes as murky, negotiable, or even inevitable. Jurors may hesitate to impose the harshest possible penalties, reasoning that if presidents, judges, and billionaires can skate by with little consequence, why should this man be singled out for life in prison? The sheer scale of impunity can breed a weary cynicism, a reluctance to draw hard moral lines, and a tendency to downgrade even serious crimes to something more socially acceptable, like 'bad behavior,' 'transactional sex,' or 'poor judgment.' This is not an accident, but part of a broader cultural project to protect male sexual entitlement while eroding women's autonomy and credibility. In the courtroom, that cultural backdrop becomes an unspoken defense, making it harder to secure the kind of verdict that would meaningfully challenge the system itself. This is not an accident or a glitch, but part of a broader cultural project that protects male sexual entitlement while eroding women's autonomy, even becoming an unspoken defense in the courtroom. In this context, the era of MAGA, convicting a powerful media mogul on sex trafficking and sending him to prison for life would have been about more than punishing one celebrity. It would have been an unambiguous statement that women's sexual autonomy matters, that forced or coerced sex is not simply 'transactional,' and that the state will intervene to defend women from male sexual entitlement. But that's precisely the kind of moral stance that is under assault in this era and women's resistance is a threat to social order. In that world, handing down a life sentence for sex trafficking against an ultra-rich, connected, male celebrity, especially one who can also claim racial targeting, would be more than punishing Diddy. The racial dynamics here are complex. While Black men are disproportionately criminalized, that fact can also become a shield for wealthy Black celebrities facing sexual abuse claims. Source: Frederick M. Brown / Getty It would set a precedent. It would say: The state is willing to define this behavior as beyond the pale. It is willing to protect women's autonomy and dignity against male power, even the most elite male power, regardless of race. That is a dangerous precedent for a system moving in the other direction. Because the rise of a Gilead-like social order depends on blurring the lines around sexual coercion, on normalizing men's right to use women's bodies, on criminalizing women's control over their own reproduction, and on trivializing or excusing sexual violence as misunderstanding, regret, or 'transaction.' A life sentence for sex trafficking wouldn't just punish Diddy. It would be a declaration of values that the system currently refuses to make. So even if the jury isn't consciously thinking: We have to protect Gilead, they are steeped in a cultural logic that sees women's sexual victimization as negotiable, deniable, less important. Lost in the parsing of verdicts are the voices of the women who described coercion, fear, and degradation—whose experiences the system still struggles to name fully as trafficking. And the legal system reflects and enforces that culture. This is not just about one man. It's about a society that is deliberately keeping the door open for sexual exploitation, forced birth, and male sexual dominance. Diddy's conviction on the lesser charges was, in many ways, a political dodge. It allows the justice system to claim it held a powerful man accountable while sidestepping the far more disruptive verdict that a trafficking conspiracy conviction, and a potential life sentence, would have delivered. And beyond the courtroom, this compromise verdict teaches the public where the lines are drawn, and where they're carefully avoided. By convicting him only for transporting women for prostitution, the jury avoids making the bold moral and legal statement that his actions were organized, coercive exploitation deserving the label of trafficking. It's a compromise verdict that satisfies calls for some punishment without threatening the social order that depends on tolerating, excusing, and even monetizing men's sexual access to women's bodies. Dr. Stacey Patton is an award-winning journalist and author of 'Spare The Kids: Why Whupping Children Won't Save Black America' and the forthcoming 'Strung Up: The Lynching of Black Children In Jim Crow America.' Read her Substack here . SEE ALSO: Sean Combs Acquitted Of Most Serious Charges There Is No Defending Diddy SEE ALSO Why Sean Combs Was Never Going To Be Fully Held Accountable [Op-Ed] was originally published on


Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Celebrities React To The Diddy Verdict
Source: Amanda Edwards / Getty Hollywood is talking up a storm now that a final verdict has been handed down in the months-long sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs. On July 2, a jury unanimously acquitted the 55-year-old hip-hop mogul of racketeering conspiracy and two serious charges of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion — despite disturbing testimony involving alleged sexual abuse, drug-fueled episodes during his infamous 'freak offs.' However, jurors did convict the 'All About The Benjamins' rapper on two lesser charges — Counts 3 and 5 — for violating the Mann Act by transporting individuals across state lines to engage in prostitution. Jurors sided with prosecutors' claims that Combs paid male escorts to travel around the country and engage in sex with his girlfriends, according to NBC News. MUST SEE: The Diddy Trial: In Pictures In reaching a not-guilty verdict on Counts 2 and 4 — which involved allegations of sex trafficking by former girlfriend Cassie Ventura and an anonymous woman referred to as 'Jane' — jurors concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the women were coerced or forced into sexual acts. Both charges carried mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years, with the potential for life in prison, making the acquittal a significant legal win for Combs. Rapper 50 Cent—who has been opinionated about the intense trial from the start— was the first to share his thoughts on the verdict via Instagram on Wednesday. 'Diddy beat the Feds that boy a bad man !' the 49-year-old rapper and entrepreneur penned, attaching several clapping emojis along with his message. 'Beat the Rico, he the Gay John Gotti @50centaction.' Notably, Yung Miami, the Bad Boy Records CEO's former girlfriend, also took to Instagram shortly after the decision was made public with a video of Justin Bieber pinching his fingers together. It's unclear if the post was meant to serve as a reaction to the news. Aubrey O'Day, a former member of Danity Kane and one of Combs' past artists, expressed frustration over the decision. The 41-year-old star said she felt 'physically ill' upon learning that the embattled music mogul would walk away without conviction on the sex trafficking and racketeering charges. 'Cassie probably feels so horrible,' the singer said filled with emotion, in a video posted to her Instagram Story. However, the verdict was met with celebration by Lil Boosie, who called it a 'great day in hip-hop.' 'Man I'm so glad Diddy Free,' the 42-year-old rap star said in a video post shared to Instagram. 'The reason is, I'm so tired of seeing us Black moguls get took down… And I'm tired of seeing us Black people go against us Black moguls.' The Baton Rouge-based hitmaker said he was thinking about Diddy's children and the fear they may have about today's verdict. 'Not knowing if your daddy is gon' come home is a burden on the child,' he added. Douglas H. Wigdor, the attorney for Cassie, spoke with Variety shortly after the verdict and praised the singer for bravely coming forward with her explosive 2023 lawsuit, the complaint that ultimately laid the groundwork for the trial. 'Although the jury did not find Combs guilty of sex trafficking Cassie beyond a reasonable doubt, she paved the way for a jury to find him guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution. By coming forward with her experience, Cassie has left an indelible mark on both the entertainment industry and the fight for justice,' Wigdor said. 'We must repeat – with no reservation – that we believe and support our client who showed exemplary courage throughout this trial. She displayed unquestionable strength and brought attention to the realities of powerful men in our orbit and the misconduct that has persisted for decades without repercussion. This case proved that change is long overdue, and we will continue to fight on behalf of survivors.' Combs is now awaiting sentencing for the two transportation convictions, with each count carrying a potential sentence of up to 10 years behind bars. DON'T MISS… 5 Nontraditional Media Personalities Covering The Diddy Trial Biggie's Mother Voletta Wallace Wants To 'Slap The Daylight' Out Of Diddy SEE ALSO Celebrities React To The Diddy Verdict was originally published on