Pasadena’s Loaded-Gun Horseplay Was Not A Joke. Release The Discipline Ledger.

Loaded police firearms are not props. A patrol-car parking garage is not a locker-room comedy set. A fellow officer being shot in the shoulder is not a quirky viral clip. The Pasadena Police Department's newly released critical-incident video should be treated as a discipline, training, supervision, and public-records ledger.

The official Pasadena critical-incident page says the officer-involved shooting happened on September 7, 2025, inside the department parking structure at 240 Ramona Street. It involved Pasadena Police Department personnel and injured one officer, who has since recovered. The department posted the critical-incident information video on June 10, 2026, and said the public release had been delayed so investigators could complete essential steps and protect the ongoing investigation.

That official framing matters. The department is not saying this was an outside suspect, a foot pursuit, a robbery call, a domestic-violence call, an armed barricade, or a split-second public threat. The reporting and the department's own video description place the incident inside the police department's own parking structure, among officers preparing for duty, with loaded firearms in play.

SFGate reported that Police Chief Gene Harris described the conduct as unsafe and out-of-policy horseplay. People reported that the video was released June 10 and that the incident remains under investigation and review by the department and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. SFGate reported that Harris said disciplinary measures were taken, but did not disclose the details. People reported that the officers' names had not been publicly released and that it was unclear whether anyone had been placed on leave.

That is not enough. If the public is expected to accept that discipline happened, the public deserves the discipline ledger.

What The Official Page Confirms

The strongest source is not the viral article. It is Pasadena's own critical-incident page for PA2025-70379.

The page ties the release to California Assembly Bill 748, now primarily codified in California Government Code Section 7923.625. It says law-enforcement agencies must publicly release audio and video recordings associated with defined critical incidents. It states that the Pasadena Police Department released a critical-incident video related to an officer-involved shooting that occurred on September 7, 2025, in the department's parking structure at 240 Ramona Street.

The page confirms that the incident involved Pasadena Police Department personnel and resulted in injuries to one officer, who has since recovered. It says the video includes mobile video footage, a statement from Chief Gene Harris, and additional context for the incident. It also says the incident remains under investigation and review by Pasadena Police and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and that investigators are evaluating video recordings, witness statements, forensic evidence, and other relevant information.

That is the official record we can build from. It gives the place, date, personnel category, release date, investigative status, and legal release frame. It also leaves obvious blanks: the officer names, the exact discipline, the firearm-handling policy sections, the training records, the supervisor response, the administrative findings, and the DA review status.

BadPD is not asking for spectacle. We are asking for the ordinary public files that should exist after an officer shoots another officer with a loaded gun inside a police facility.

The Video-Release Law Is Part Of The Story

California Government Code Section 7923.625 says critical-incident video or audio may be withheld during an active criminal or administrative investigation for no longer than 45 calendar days if disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After 45 days and up to one year, the agency may continue delaying disclosure if it demonstrates substantial interference. After one year, continued delay requires a higher showing.

The Pasadena incident happened on September 7, 2025. The critical-incident page is dated June 10, 2026, with a June 11 update marker. That is roughly nine months later. Pasadena says the release was delayed to allow investigators to complete essential investigative steps and to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

The point is not that every delayed release is illegal. California law allows delay under specific conditions. The point is that delay itself becomes a ledger. When a police department waits months to release a critical-incident video, the public should be able to see the written basis, the estimated disclosure dates, the reassessments, and the reasons the investigative need outweighed the public interest in immediate release.

That standard should apply even when the subject is embarrassing to police rather than deadly to a civilian. Maybe especially then. A department should not be more transparent when a civilian is shot than when the misconduct is inside its own walls. Internal embarrassment is not a public-records exemption.

The public should ask for every delay memo, every reassessment, every notice, and every internal communication that explains why this officer-involved shooting video took until June 2026 to reach the public page.

The Discipline Ledger Cannot Be A Black Box

SFGate reported that Harris said disciplinary measures were taken, without providing detail. That single sentence opens the biggest accountability gap in the story.

Discipline can mean a written warning. It can mean retraining. It can mean suspension. It can mean loss of assignment. It can mean termination. It can mean a finding that sounds strong in public but does little internally. Without the record, the public has no way to know whether Pasadena treated loaded-firearm horseplay as a catastrophic safety breach or a contained personnel problem.

There are obvious questions.

Was the officer who pointed a firearm disciplined? Was the officer who fired disciplined? Were supervisors disciplined? Were any officers removed from field duty? Were firearms qualifications reviewed? Were psychological fitness, tactical decision-making, or safety training reviewed? Did the department audit its parking-structure loading routine? Did policy change after the shooting? Did every officer in the involved unit get retraining? Did the department issue a bulletin about unholstering, muzzle discipline, trigger discipline, or horseplay involving duty weapons?

A department cannot credibly tell the public that discipline happened while refusing to disclose the type of discipline, the policy findings, and the remedial steps. If privacy law limits names or personnel-file details, the department can still publish a redacted administrative findings summary. It can still identify the policy sections. It can still disclose whether the finding was sustained. It can still tell the public whether the involved officers returned to duty and under what conditions.

The discipline ledger should include the policy number, alleged violation, finding, discipline category, training ordered, command review, and whether any supervisor or trainer was held responsible. That is not anti-police. That is basic risk management around guns.

The Public Safety Issue Is Bigger Than The Parking Garage

People will be tempted to treat this like a dumb-officer clip. That is too small.

Police departments ask the public to trust officers with loaded firearms in traffic stops, schools, apartments, mental-health calls, hospitals, protests, domestic calls, search warrants, and crowded public events. That trust depends on the idea that officers understand firearms are lethal instruments, not props for quick-draw jokes.

If an officer can point a loaded gun at another officer in a department parking structure, what does that say about safety culture? What does it say about supervision? What does it say about whether other officers felt empowered to intervene before the shot? What does it say about whether casual rule-breaking had been tolerated before the camera caught the worst version?

This is where police accountability should be easiest. There is no complicated civilian use-of-force split screen here. No one has to parse a shaky cellphone video from across the street. No one has to decide whether a suspect had a weapon. No one has to decode a chase. The reported facts are simple: officers were at their own facility, a loaded gun was pointed in horseplay, a shot was fired, and an officer was wounded.

If a department cannot be transparent about that, why should residents trust it to be transparent in the harder cases?

Do Not Let The Recovery Erase The Harm

The injured officer survived and recovered. That is good. It should not be used to shrink the seriousness of what happened.

A shoulder wound from a duty weapon could have killed him. It could have hit an artery. It could have hit another officer. It could have gone through glass, metal, or a wall into someone who had nothing to do with the horseplay. The difference between an embarrassing injury and a funeral may have been inches.

That is why this cannot be filed under accidental mishap. The department and reporters have used words like suspected accidental, horseplay, and regretful conduct. Those words may be accurate as far as intent, but they can also soften the public's understanding of risk. A negligent or reckless gun-handling event does not become minor because the wounded person lived.

The better question is whether the conduct would be treated the same way if a civilian had pointed a loaded gun in a police parking lot and another person had been shot. Would the public hear about discipline only in vague terms? Would names stay hidden? Would the delay in release be treated as routine? Would the criminal-review status be allowed to drift in the background?

Equal standards matter. If a civilian would face a hard public ledger, officers should not get a soft one just because the wound stayed inside the badge family.

The District Attorney Review Needs A Public Status

The official Pasadena page says the incident remains under review by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. That is a major fact.

A DA review does not mean charges are coming. It does not mean the shooting was criminal. It means prosecutors are reviewing the case or the evidence path. The public needs to know what that review covers. Is the DA reviewing the discharge itself? The pointing of the gun? Potential negligent discharge, assault, unsafe firearm handling, or only the officer-involved-shooting classification? Was the case referred as a criminal matter, a standard OIS review, or both?

The eventual DA decision should be linked directly from Pasadena's critical-incident page. If no charges are filed, publish the reasoning. If charges are filed, publish the complaint. If the DA declines because administrative discipline is the proper path, say that plainly. If the review remains open, publish a dated status update.

The public should not have to search months later to learn whether a loaded-gun horseplay case quietly closed.

What Pasadena Should Release Next

First, release the full administrative findings summary. Names can be handled according to law, but the public needs sustained findings, policy sections, discipline categories, and remedial training.

Second, release the delay ledger under Government Code Section 7923.625. Show the written basis for delaying video beyond 45 days, the estimated disclosure dates, any 30-day reassessments if applicable, and the moment the department decided disclosure would no longer interfere with the investigation.

Third, release the firearm-safety policy sections and any post-incident training bulletin. The public should know what the rules said on September 7, whether the rules changed after the incident, and whether every officer was retrained.

Fourth, release the supervisor timeline. Who was present? Who was in charge? Who notified command? Who secured the scene? Who separated witnesses? Who preserved the weapon, bodycam, dashcam, mobile video, radio traffic, and forensic evidence?

Fifth, release the DA-review status. If the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office is still reviewing, put that in writing and update it. If the review is done, link the finding.

Sixth, release the return-to-duty ledger. Did the injured officer return? Did the officer who fired return? Did the officer who pointed a weapon return? Were either placed on leave? Were restrictions imposed? Was any firearms qualification repeated? Were any supervisors reassigned?

Those are the records that turn a viral embarrassment into public accountability.

The BadPD Bottom Line

This is not complicated. A Pasadena officer was shot in the department's own parking structure after what officials and reporting describe as unsafe, out-of-policy horseplay involving loaded firearms. Pasadena released a critical-incident video months later and says the case remains under review by the department and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

The public now has enough to know the incident happened. It does not yet have enough to know whether the department fixed the failure.

That is the gap. Not whether the clip is shocking. Not whether the officer recovered. Not whether people can make jokes about cops doing something stupid. The gap is whether Pasadena will publish the discipline, training, delay, policy, supervisor, and DA-review ledger.

Loaded guns are not props. If Pasadena wants the public to believe its discipline was real, it should release the record that proves it.

The Records To Pull Next

The first records request should ask for the AB 748 and Government Code 7923.625 delay file: the written basis for withholding, the estimated release date, any reassessment notices, the date the department decided the release would no longer substantially interfere with the investigation, and any correspondence with the district attorney about timing.

The second request should ask for the administrative investigation index. Not the private medical file. Not gossip. The index. Case number, opened date, assigned unit, reviewed policy sections, sustained or not-sustained findings, discipline category, command approvals, and whether any policy revision or training bulletin followed.

The third request should ask for the firearm-handling and safety policy sections active on September 7, 2025, plus any version now in force. If the rule already banned this conduct, the story is enforcement and culture. If the rule was vague, the story is policy design. If the rule changed after the shooting, the story is whether Pasadena admits the old rule was not enough.

The fourth request should ask for training records in aggregate: how often officers are trained on muzzle discipline, unholstering, administrative loading areas, parking-structure weapon handling, accidental or negligent discharge reporting, and intervention when another officer is doing something unsafe. The public does not need every officer's full personnel history to know whether the department trains the basics.

The fifth request should ask for supervisor notification and scene-preservation records. Who locked down the garage? Who secured the involved guns? Who separated the officers? Who preserved mobile video, bodycam, dashcam, radio audio, and surveillance video? Who notified command staff? Who notified the DA?

The sixth request should ask for return-to-duty conditions. If an officer points a firearm in horseplay and another officer gets shot, the public has a legitimate interest in whether those officers returned to patrol, whether restrictions were imposed, whether firearms qualification was repeated, and whether the department documented a risk assessment.

These are not exotic records. They are the basic paper trail a serious department should expect to defend after a loaded-gun failure inside its own building.

Reader Safety And Source-Status Note

This article is a public-safety accountability ledger, not a harassment request, anti-police blanket claim, demand to expose private medical information, or criminal charging conclusion. It separates confirmed official records and accountable reporting from pending discipline, policy, delay, and district-attorney review records.

Source Trail

• Pasadena Police: Critical Incident Information Video PA2025-70379 (June 10-11, 2026) – Official source for incident date, parking-structure location, injury/recovery status, delayed release explanation, video/audio links, and ongoing PPD/LA DA review.
• California Government Code Section 7923.625 (Current California law) – Official critical-incident video/audio release statute used for the delay-ledger and public-records frame.
• Pasadena Police Department policy manual (Official department policy portal) – Official policy-manual source for follow-up review of firearm handling, training, discipline, and critical-incident procedures.
• SFGate: video shows horseplay shooting between Pasadena officers (June 11, 2026) – Local/regional report describing the video, Chief Gene Harris statement, quick-draw conduct, shoulder wound, discipline statement, release delay, and review lanes.
• People: California officer accidentally shoots fellow cop in horseplay incident (June 12, 2026) – National report cross-checking the PPD release, timing, location, ongoing investigation, officer names not released, and unresolved leave/discipline details.
• Pasadena Police Transparency Portal (Official city transparency portal) – Official context source for PPD transparency materials, critical-incident videos, policy links, and oversight follow-up pathways.