Oh, and you just thought the drama surrounding the killing of Botha Shem Jean by an off-duty Dallas police officer was over. How wrong you were.
In an ongoing attempt to justify the unjustifiable, the Dallas police obtained a search warrant to look for evidence of drugs -- in Mr. Jean's apartment. That's right. Instead of treating Amber Guyger as any other defendant charged with killing someone, the police went to a judge and obtained a search warrant -- signed by a judge -- giving them permission to search Mr. Jean's apartment for drugs. A judge had to read the affidavit and agree that there was probable cause to believe evidence of a crime would be found in Mr. Jean's apartment -- and that said evidence was relevant to the investigation of his murder.
And, of course, once the cops found some marijuana in the apartment, the media were alerted and the stories began popping up around the state that weed had been found in Mr. Jean's apartment.
Now let's step back for just a second here. Any marijuana - or any other illegal items - found in Mr. Jean's apartment are completely irrelevant to the investigation of the killing because Ms. Guyger said the lights were out in the apartment when she entered it and shot and killed Mr. Jean.
She wasn't carrying out a raid. She wasn't executing a search warrant. According to her story she walked into the wrong apartment and shot Mr. Jean thinking he was an intruder in her apartment. Besides, the possession of small amounts of marijuana is a misdemeanor -- it's not a capital offense.
The point in obtaining the warrant was to gather "evidence" that would make Mr. Jean look like a criminal in the public's mind. Suddenly he goes from innocent victim to a black drug user or dealer. Now the cops and prosecutors will point out every time they are asked to comment that illegal drugs were found in Mr. Jean's apartment in an attempt to divert attention away from the facts that an unarmed black man was shot and killed in his own apartment by an off-duty cop.
Such a tactic will also divert the public's attention from the fact that Ms. Guyger was allowed to leave the scene and was free to discard or destroy any evidence of the crime. We will never know if she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol because any evidence of intoxication has already been pissed, sweated and breathed away. I'm sure the cops and the District Attorney would be more than happy if the public would quit paying attention to the ridiculous story Ms. Guyger told investigators and that was subsequently used in the arrest warrant.
No matter what smokescreens the Dallas police erect, never forget that Mr. Jean was in his own apartment minding his own business when a cop entered, barked orders at him and shot him to death.
The only good thing to come from this situation is the public's realization that the police will go to whatever lengths they need in order to cover up for one of their own.
And people still don't understand why Colin Kaepernick knelt.
Showing posts with label police brutality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police brutality. Show all posts
Friday, September 14, 2018
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Whitewashing a police shooting in Dallas
Did y'all hear the one about the off-duty cop who walked into the wrong apartment and then accidentally shot the person who actually lived there? How about the part where she wasn't arrested afterward and was free to go back to her place? And what about the arrest affidavit that was just a retelling of her story?
Hysterical, isn't it?
Amber Guyger is a four-year veteran of the Dallas Police Department. On the evening of September 6 she supposedly returned home to her apartment in the Southside Flats. Somehow she ended up on the wrong floor and inside the apartment of Botham Shem Jean. She claims that she inserted her key (which contained an electronic chip) into the lock of the apartment door but the door was ajar. She entered. When she heard someone she yelled at them to stop and then she fired her gun and killed Mr. Jean.
The story is beyond absurd. How did she end up on the wrong floor? She lived there. She knew what floor she was on when she exited the parking garage. Her claim that the door to Mr. Jean's apartment was ajar doesn't hold any water, either. According to the affidavit, when she pushed open the door the lights in the apartment were off. She claims she turned on the lights after shooting Mr. Jean.
So we are to believe that she got confused, went to the wrong floor and then stuck her key in the door of the wrong apartment. Please. Apartment doors have numbers on them. The apartment was in an interior hallway. She claims the lights in the apartment were out and that she heard someone stirring about. Really? Someone's going to leave their door ajar in the middle of the night and rummage around their own apartment in the dark?
Not buying it, Ms. Guyger.
But at least your buddies on the police force did. They let you go home without slapping cuffs on your wrists and taking you in. They allowed whatever substances were in your body to be eliminated before anyone had a chance to make an official observation. Then they bring in the Texas Rangers for cover who draft an arrest affidavit that is nothing but a rehash of your own bullshit story.
After being taken to jail, Ms. Guyger was able to post a $300,000 bond -- meaning someone had to plop down at least $30,000.
And just why does the arrest warrant mention that they police were looking around Mr. Jean's apartment for narcotics? Is it time to paint the victim of a police shooting as a criminal so that white folk can brush their hands of the matter and go on to their white bread world?
Now just imagine had Ms. Guyger not been a police officer. Would she have been allowed to go home? No, she would have been arrested. They certainly wouldn't have been given two or three days to destroy any incriminating evidence. Would the police ask her for her account of what happened and then use that account in their arrest warrant? No, an investigating officer would have noted the facts and would have drawn his or her own conclusions.
In the end it likely doesn't matter because the DA - or whoever presents the case - will tell a grand jury the "facts" as related by Ms. Guyger and will then nod, wink and tell the grand jury to do what they think is right - which is code for no-bill this fucker as quickly and quietly as possible.
Meanwhile Mr. Jean is dead and his family and friends will be left to mourn a life that was taken without reason and without repercussion.
Hysterical, isn't it?
Amber Guyger is a four-year veteran of the Dallas Police Department. On the evening of September 6 she supposedly returned home to her apartment in the Southside Flats. Somehow she ended up on the wrong floor and inside the apartment of Botham Shem Jean. She claims that she inserted her key (which contained an electronic chip) into the lock of the apartment door but the door was ajar. She entered. When she heard someone she yelled at them to stop and then she fired her gun and killed Mr. Jean.
The story is beyond absurd. How did she end up on the wrong floor? She lived there. She knew what floor she was on when she exited the parking garage. Her claim that the door to Mr. Jean's apartment was ajar doesn't hold any water, either. According to the affidavit, when she pushed open the door the lights in the apartment were off. She claims she turned on the lights after shooting Mr. Jean.
So we are to believe that she got confused, went to the wrong floor and then stuck her key in the door of the wrong apartment. Please. Apartment doors have numbers on them. The apartment was in an interior hallway. She claims the lights in the apartment were out and that she heard someone stirring about. Really? Someone's going to leave their door ajar in the middle of the night and rummage around their own apartment in the dark?
Not buying it, Ms. Guyger.
But at least your buddies on the police force did. They let you go home without slapping cuffs on your wrists and taking you in. They allowed whatever substances were in your body to be eliminated before anyone had a chance to make an official observation. Then they bring in the Texas Rangers for cover who draft an arrest affidavit that is nothing but a rehash of your own bullshit story.
After being taken to jail, Ms. Guyger was able to post a $300,000 bond -- meaning someone had to plop down at least $30,000.
And just why does the arrest warrant mention that they police were looking around Mr. Jean's apartment for narcotics? Is it time to paint the victim of a police shooting as a criminal so that white folk can brush their hands of the matter and go on to their white bread world?
Now just imagine had Ms. Guyger not been a police officer. Would she have been allowed to go home? No, she would have been arrested. They certainly wouldn't have been given two or three days to destroy any incriminating evidence. Would the police ask her for her account of what happened and then use that account in their arrest warrant? No, an investigating officer would have noted the facts and would have drawn his or her own conclusions.
In the end it likely doesn't matter because the DA - or whoever presents the case - will tell a grand jury the "facts" as related by Ms. Guyger and will then nod, wink and tell the grand jury to do what they think is right - which is code for no-bill this fucker as quickly and quietly as possible.
Meanwhile Mr. Jean is dead and his family and friends will be left to mourn a life that was taken without reason and without repercussion.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Internal investigation? What internal investigation?
In 2015, the family of Darryl Mount, Jr., filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Saratoga Springs, NY, then Public Safety commissioner Christian Mathiesen and seven police officers, including the police chief, Gregory Veitch.
In August 2013 Mr. Mount was running from the police in downtown Saratoga Springs when police approached him after seeing him assault his girlfriend outside of a bar. He ended up at the bottom of a 19 foot scaffold with injuries that would prove to be fatal. He was taken to the hospital in a coma from which he never awoke.
Chief Veitch and Mr. Mathiesen denied there was any validity to the family's claims that the injuries had been inflicted by the police. In fact, Chief Veitch told the public that the department's own internal investigation concluded that there had been no police misconduct.
So far the tale is unremarkable. A black man dies in an encounter with the police. The police conduct an internal investigation. No one crosses the thin blue line and the officers in question are cleared. The DA's office is put on notice that the ball's in their court now.
The only problem is, there was never an internal police investigation conducted to determine whether there were any acts of police misconduct that night. There was a police investigation conducted - to determine whether Mr. Mount should be charged with attempted assault, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
We know there was no internal investigation conducted into the incident because Chief Veitch admitted that he lied to the press in a sworn deposition taken pursuant to the wrongful death suit. The lawsuit also turned up an e-mail in which Chief Veitch said it was important to give he public the impression that the police department was concerned with the allegations - even though they weren't.
When asked why he didn't conduct an investigation, Chief Veitch claimed it was because no one had alleged any incident of police misconduct. That is, except for family members at the hospital who made the allegations to Det. Tim Sicko. Det. Sicko, in turn, relayed the allegations to Chief Veitch.
Chief Veitch, despite his department's own General Order Section 25, failed to conduct an internal affairs review within 45 days of the allegations. Famed forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht reviewed the medical records, X-rays and photographs and came to the conclusion that Mr. Mount's injuries were more consistent with being beaten than falling from a scaffold. The forensic medical examiner used by local police, Dr. Michael Sikirica, issued a report supporting the police department's claims of no misconduct after reviewing statements from various witnesses and medical records - he never reviewed the photographs of Mr. Mount's injuries nor the actual X-rays or CAT scans.
This case illustrates why some type of external review board is necessary for investigating allegations of police misconduct. Any such board must have subpoena power to compel the production of witnesses and documents. The system in Saratoga Springs didn't fail. It did exactly what it was supposed to do - provide cover for the police. Only this time we got a peak behind the curtain.
h/t Scott Greenfield
In August 2013 Mr. Mount was running from the police in downtown Saratoga Springs when police approached him after seeing him assault his girlfriend outside of a bar. He ended up at the bottom of a 19 foot scaffold with injuries that would prove to be fatal. He was taken to the hospital in a coma from which he never awoke.
Chief Veitch and Mr. Mathiesen denied there was any validity to the family's claims that the injuries had been inflicted by the police. In fact, Chief Veitch told the public that the department's own internal investigation concluded that there had been no police misconduct.
So far the tale is unremarkable. A black man dies in an encounter with the police. The police conduct an internal investigation. No one crosses the thin blue line and the officers in question are cleared. The DA's office is put on notice that the ball's in their court now.
The only problem is, there was never an internal police investigation conducted to determine whether there were any acts of police misconduct that night. There was a police investigation conducted - to determine whether Mr. Mount should be charged with attempted assault, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
We know there was no internal investigation conducted into the incident because Chief Veitch admitted that he lied to the press in a sworn deposition taken pursuant to the wrongful death suit. The lawsuit also turned up an e-mail in which Chief Veitch said it was important to give he public the impression that the police department was concerned with the allegations - even though they weren't.
When asked why he didn't conduct an investigation, Chief Veitch claimed it was because no one had alleged any incident of police misconduct. That is, except for family members at the hospital who made the allegations to Det. Tim Sicko. Det. Sicko, in turn, relayed the allegations to Chief Veitch.
Chief Veitch, despite his department's own General Order Section 25, failed to conduct an internal affairs review within 45 days of the allegations. Famed forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht reviewed the medical records, X-rays and photographs and came to the conclusion that Mr. Mount's injuries were more consistent with being beaten than falling from a scaffold. The forensic medical examiner used by local police, Dr. Michael Sikirica, issued a report supporting the police department's claims of no misconduct after reviewing statements from various witnesses and medical records - he never reviewed the photographs of Mr. Mount's injuries nor the actual X-rays or CAT scans.
This case illustrates why some type of external review board is necessary for investigating allegations of police misconduct. Any such board must have subpoena power to compel the production of witnesses and documents. The system in Saratoga Springs didn't fail. It did exactly what it was supposed to do - provide cover for the police. Only this time we got a peak behind the curtain.
h/t Scott Greenfield
Friday, June 8, 2018
Let the beatings continue
For those of y'all who live in Donald Trump's fantasy world, this is the reality of why Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the playing of the national anthem.
This is the reason that organizations such as Black Lives Matter exist.
This is the reality that people of color find themselves in in this country.
This is what those promoting the inherently racist line of Blue Lives Matter would like you to forget.
What was this man's crime, you ask? The police were called to an apartment complex in Phoenix on a domestic violence call. The man in the video had nothing to do with the alleged incident. Even though he wasn't involved in the incident, he cooperated with the police. He leaned against a wall. He allowed officers to frisk him. He answered questions. But when he was asked to sit against the far wall and he just squatted, that's when the police had enough and assaulted him.
If you think this same shit doesn't occur all over this country then you are either blind, ignorant or a racist.
So the next time you hear Donald Trump, or some other windbag, throw shade on black athletes who protest peacefully during the playing of the national anthem, just remember this video.
And one other little thing, instead of being arrested and charged with assault, the officers involved are on a paid vacation.
h/t Stefania Okolie
This is the reason that organizations such as Black Lives Matter exist.
This is the reality that people of color find themselves in in this country.
This is what those promoting the inherently racist line of Blue Lives Matter would like you to forget.
What was this man's crime, you ask? The police were called to an apartment complex in Phoenix on a domestic violence call. The man in the video had nothing to do with the alleged incident. Even though he wasn't involved in the incident, he cooperated with the police. He leaned against a wall. He allowed officers to frisk him. He answered questions. But when he was asked to sit against the far wall and he just squatted, that's when the police had enough and assaulted him.
If you think this same shit doesn't occur all over this country then you are either blind, ignorant or a racist.
So the next time you hear Donald Trump, or some other windbag, throw shade on black athletes who protest peacefully during the playing of the national anthem, just remember this video.
And one other little thing, instead of being arrested and charged with assault, the officers involved are on a paid vacation.
h/t Stefania Okolie
Monday, May 14, 2018
Turning the tables
- Federal hate crimes laws were passed to correct the centuries of inaction and injustice that too often was the response to violence based on immutable traits and identities, including race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
- There's no possible interpretation where being a law enforcement officer fits that definition. Congress should vote this down quickly and decisively.
These tweets were posted by the ACLU on May 8, 2018 as a reaction to a Senate bill that would classify violence against police officers as a hate crime. Such a law already exists in Louisiana.
Apparently the irony of the situation was lost on the leadership of the ACLU as this is just the latest logical extension of the push for hate crime legislation over the years. I've written before on why hate crime legislation should be found unconstitutional and how it's just a bad idea.
For every offense that someone wishes to attach the label "hate crime," a criminal act was already committed. If a person yells out a racist epithet and then shoots and kills the target of his ire, he's looking at a murder charge. There is no reason to try to enhance the sentence because of what he said beforehand.
With the right in power, the state's backlash against Black Lives Matter is in full force. There are plenty of dog whistles - from Blue Lives Matter to US flags with a blue stripe to ribbons to support law enforcement - about our everyday lives. The next step is to make it a hate crime to attack a police officer.
Never mind that assaulting a police officer is already a more serious offense that assaulting someone on the street. Never mind that killing a police officer makes you eligible to get the needle. No. We need a law that we can use against folks who have the temerity to stand up against police brutality and racist killings.
And this is how you do it. You give the same people who cower under the table when faced with charging a police officer for killing an unarmed black man yet another charge they can use against a person accused of assaulting a police officer.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Two cities. Two men. Two very different outcomes.
Cops aren't racists.
Every situation is different.
If you just follow orders, you won't get shot.
White folks get shot, too.
Wednesday afternoon in Brooklyn, police received three separate 911 calls about a man walking down the street pointing a metal object at people. When police arrived at the scene, they saw Saheed who met the description they were given. The man took what the police called a two-handed shooting stance with a metallic object in his hands.
Four officers fired on Mr. Vassell, striking him a total of ten times. None of the officers were wearing body cameras. He died at the hospital.
According to his father, Mr. Vassell was bi-polar and had been "sick " for some time. Other people who knew Mr. Vassell said he was well-known in the neighborhood and didn't bother anyone. One resident told a reporter that all the police officers in the neighborhood knew Mr. Vassell.
The metallic object in Mr. Vassell's hand was a shower head.
The officers never gave Mr. Vassell the opportunity to comply with their orders. They shot and killed another unarmed black man.
A week ago yesterday, in Louisville (KY), police responded to a domestic violence call. As police approached the door, Oscar Walters picked up an air rifle and pointed it at officers. Then he fired it, shattering the glass in the front door. After fleeing the house, Mr. Walters resisted arrest and refused to obey orders from the police.
Officers eventually tackled Mr. Walters, though one officer suffered a fractured wrist, arrested him and took him to jail.
Need I even point out that Mr. Walters was white?
Saheed Vassell was shot and killed for pointing a pipe at people on the street. The police never attempted to subdue him - and they never attempted to determine what he was holding in his hand. Mr. Walters shot at police, ran from them, resisted arrest - but is still alive.
Stephon Clark was standing in his backyard holding his cellphone when he was shot and killed by multiple bullets fired by police officers. Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 students in Parkland (FL) but was taken out alive.
The tangents running through these cases is clear and the longer we try to ignore it, the more killings we condone. It's very telling that NFL owners and wingnuts are more concerned with a man kneeling during the national anthem than they are at the scores of unarmed black men shot down by the police.
For all the pontificating by the right over the sanitized version of Martin Luther King, Jr. we are taught in school, his work was left undone when he was struck down by a sniper's rifle on April 4, 1968. We still live in a divided society with little sign it will change anytime soon.
Every situation is different.
If you just follow orders, you won't get shot.
White folks get shot, too.
Wednesday afternoon in Brooklyn, police received three separate 911 calls about a man walking down the street pointing a metal object at people. When police arrived at the scene, they saw Saheed who met the description they were given. The man took what the police called a two-handed shooting stance with a metallic object in his hands.
Four officers fired on Mr. Vassell, striking him a total of ten times. None of the officers were wearing body cameras. He died at the hospital.
According to his father, Mr. Vassell was bi-polar and had been "sick " for some time. Other people who knew Mr. Vassell said he was well-known in the neighborhood and didn't bother anyone. One resident told a reporter that all the police officers in the neighborhood knew Mr. Vassell.
The metallic object in Mr. Vassell's hand was a shower head.
The officers never gave Mr. Vassell the opportunity to comply with their orders. They shot and killed another unarmed black man.
A week ago yesterday, in Louisville (KY), police responded to a domestic violence call. As police approached the door, Oscar Walters picked up an air rifle and pointed it at officers. Then he fired it, shattering the glass in the front door. After fleeing the house, Mr. Walters resisted arrest and refused to obey orders from the police.
Officers eventually tackled Mr. Walters, though one officer suffered a fractured wrist, arrested him and took him to jail.
Need I even point out that Mr. Walters was white?
Saheed Vassell was shot and killed for pointing a pipe at people on the street. The police never attempted to subdue him - and they never attempted to determine what he was holding in his hand. Mr. Walters shot at police, ran from them, resisted arrest - but is still alive.
Stephon Clark was standing in his backyard holding his cellphone when he was shot and killed by multiple bullets fired by police officers. Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 students in Parkland (FL) but was taken out alive.
The tangents running through these cases is clear and the longer we try to ignore it, the more killings we condone. It's very telling that NFL owners and wingnuts are more concerned with a man kneeling during the national anthem than they are at the scores of unarmed black men shot down by the police.
For all the pontificating by the right over the sanitized version of Martin Luther King, Jr. we are taught in school, his work was left undone when he was struck down by a sniper's rifle on April 4, 1968. We still live in a divided society with little sign it will change anytime soon.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
What accountability?
On July 5, 2016, Alton Sterling was murdered on the sidewalk in front of a convenience store in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Everyone knew the name of the man who had shot and killed him.
Now, after 20 months and an exhaustive investigation by Louisiana Department of Justice (talk about your oxymorons), Blaine Salamoni will not be charged with killing Mr. Sterling.
Blaine Salamoni is a police officer with the Baton Rouge Police Department. On the evening of July 5, Officer Salamoni and his partner, Howie Lake II, were dispatched to the Triple S Food Mart where a person claimed that Mr. Sterling had threatened him with a gun. Within 20 seconds of arriving on the scene, Officer Salamoni pulled his weapon.
While Officer Howe subdued Mr. Sterling, Officer Salamoni fired six bullets into Mr. Sterling's body - killing him. The officers were cleared by the Department of Justice last July but were still waiting to find out if any charges would be filed against them.
State Attorney General Jeff Landry said that the process was a long one and that the decision was not made lightly.
Let's see. If the police witness a shooting or come across a scene shortly after a shooting, the person they suspect of the shooting is getting cuffed and driven to the county jail. The prosecutor will recommend that charges be filed and will tell all who will listen that he will let the criminal justice system run its course. But when that shooter is a cop then it takes months, if not years, to investigate all with the hope that some other event will distract public attention away from the shooting. Meanwhile the officer gets a paid vacation while the target of his ire is left lying on a slab in the morgue.
The process is designed to find a reason, any reason, NOT to charge the officer with a criminal offense. An ordinary citizen is rarely, if ever, given the same consideration.
Meanwhile the killling continues.
Now, after 20 months and an exhaustive investigation by Louisiana Department of Justice (talk about your oxymorons), Blaine Salamoni will not be charged with killing Mr. Sterling.
Blaine Salamoni is a police officer with the Baton Rouge Police Department. On the evening of July 5, Officer Salamoni and his partner, Howie Lake II, were dispatched to the Triple S Food Mart where a person claimed that Mr. Sterling had threatened him with a gun. Within 20 seconds of arriving on the scene, Officer Salamoni pulled his weapon.
While Officer Howe subdued Mr. Sterling, Officer Salamoni fired six bullets into Mr. Sterling's body - killing him. The officers were cleared by the Department of Justice last July but were still waiting to find out if any charges would be filed against them.
State Attorney General Jeff Landry said that the process was a long one and that the decision was not made lightly.
Let's see. If the police witness a shooting or come across a scene shortly after a shooting, the person they suspect of the shooting is getting cuffed and driven to the county jail. The prosecutor will recommend that charges be filed and will tell all who will listen that he will let the criminal justice system run its course. But when that shooter is a cop then it takes months, if not years, to investigate all with the hope that some other event will distract public attention away from the shooting. Meanwhile the officer gets a paid vacation while the target of his ire is left lying on a slab in the morgue.
The process is designed to find a reason, any reason, NOT to charge the officer with a criminal offense. An ordinary citizen is rarely, if ever, given the same consideration.
Meanwhile the killling continues.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Of split-second decisions
Whenever an unarmed person is shot and killed by police we hear the same old tropes about officers having to make split-second decisions. Grand jurors get to play around with a simulator in which they have to make a decision whether or not to shoot whenever cases involving police killings of unarmed people are to be heard.
In West Virginia, an officer made a split-second decision NOT to pull the trigger and it cost him his job.
On the evening of May 6, 2016, Officer Stephen Mader of the Weirton (W.Va) Police Department answered a domestic disturbance call. A visibly disturbed man named Ronald Williams was at the scene. Officer Mader ordered Mr. Williams to show him his hands. Mr. Williams was holding an unloaded handgun.
Officer Mader ordered Mr. Williams to drop the weapon. Mr. Williams said he couldn't and asked Officer Mader to shoot him. As it turned out, the 911 caller was Mr. Williams' girlfriend. She called police and told the dispatcher that Mr. Williams had threatened her with a knife. Before the police arrived he retrieved the unloaded gun from his car and told his girlfriend that he was going to make the police kill him. Suicide by cop as we call it.
Officer Mader made the choice not to shoot Mr. Williams who was shot and killed moments later when he waved his gun at two officers who came to the scene after Officer Mader.
One month later Officer Mader was fired from the Weirton Police Department. The police department maintained that Officer Mader was fired because he failed to meet probationary standards and because he had difficulties in critical incident reasoning. Local officials claimed that the incident involving Mr. Williams had nothing to do with the firing.
Mr. Mader sued the city, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for his decision not to shoot Mr. Williams.
Yesterday, the ACLU announced that the city and Mr. Mader had reached a settlement agreement and that the city would pay Mr. Mader $175,000 in exchange for him dismissing his lawsuit.
And this highlights one of the problems with police culture. Instead of shooting Mr. Williams as the result of a split-second decision, Mr. Mader made the decision not to act rashly. He didn't know the gun was unloaded - that fact wasn't revealed to any of the officers at the scene. He made the decision not to escalate the situation in hopes that it could be resolved peacefully. For that he was called a coward by a fellow officer. For that decision not to escalate, he was fired.
Just think about that for a second.
What does that tell us about other police killings of unarmed black men? If someone had exercised the restraint that Mr. Mader did on that May night in 2016, there would have been fewer killings.
In West Virginia, an officer made a split-second decision NOT to pull the trigger and it cost him his job.
On the evening of May 6, 2016, Officer Stephen Mader of the Weirton (W.Va) Police Department answered a domestic disturbance call. A visibly disturbed man named Ronald Williams was at the scene. Officer Mader ordered Mr. Williams to show him his hands. Mr. Williams was holding an unloaded handgun.
Officer Mader ordered Mr. Williams to drop the weapon. Mr. Williams said he couldn't and asked Officer Mader to shoot him. As it turned out, the 911 caller was Mr. Williams' girlfriend. She called police and told the dispatcher that Mr. Williams had threatened her with a knife. Before the police arrived he retrieved the unloaded gun from his car and told his girlfriend that he was going to make the police kill him. Suicide by cop as we call it.
Officer Mader made the choice not to shoot Mr. Williams who was shot and killed moments later when he waved his gun at two officers who came to the scene after Officer Mader.
One month later Officer Mader was fired from the Weirton Police Department. The police department maintained that Officer Mader was fired because he failed to meet probationary standards and because he had difficulties in critical incident reasoning. Local officials claimed that the incident involving Mr. Williams had nothing to do with the firing.
Mr. Mader sued the city, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for his decision not to shoot Mr. Williams.
Yesterday, the ACLU announced that the city and Mr. Mader had reached a settlement agreement and that the city would pay Mr. Mader $175,000 in exchange for him dismissing his lawsuit.
And this highlights one of the problems with police culture. Instead of shooting Mr. Williams as the result of a split-second decision, Mr. Mader made the decision not to act rashly. He didn't know the gun was unloaded - that fact wasn't revealed to any of the officers at the scene. He made the decision not to escalate the situation in hopes that it could be resolved peacefully. For that he was called a coward by a fellow officer. For that decision not to escalate, he was fired.
Just think about that for a second.
What does that tell us about other police killings of unarmed black men? If someone had exercised the restraint that Mr. Mader did on that May night in 2016, there would have been fewer killings.
Friday, February 9, 2018
Tennessee sheriff gets off on killing
Ordinarily, if you tell someone to shoot someone else - and they do - you're going to find yourself in hot water. But Sheriff Oddie Shoupe of White County (you can't make up this stuff), Tennessee is no ordinary person.
You see, Sheriff Shoupe was recorded telling officers to shoot a motorist rather than risk damaging police vehicles to run him off the road. The motorist, Michael Dial, was shot and killed by a deputy after his car ran into a ditch following a chase that rarely topped speeds of 50 mph.
Now Sheriff Shoupe is on the wrong end of a federal lawsuit alleging that his department violated Mr. Dial's civil rights and that Mr. Dial was the victim of excessive force.
The most shocking thing about this episode isn't that the sheriff said what he said, but that he was dumb enough to say it when his voice was being recorded. And just so there is no misunderstanding, Mr. Dial was pulled over for a traffic violation - that's it. He was executed for committing a traffic violation.
Now whether you want to argue that Mr. Dial brought this upon himself by driving away from the scene is up to you. The point remains that he was gunned down for a traffic violation because the sheriff didn't want to scratch the paint on a patrol car. You may be a law and order type who doesn't think the Blue Lives Matter movement isn't a polite cover for racism, but there is nothing that Mr. Dial did that deserved the death penalty.
Now the files of every police shooting under Sheriff Shoupe need to be opened up and examined to determine if there is a pattern of this type of behavior in White County. Every officer involved shooting should now be suspect.
You see, Sheriff Shoupe was recorded telling officers to shoot a motorist rather than risk damaging police vehicles to run him off the road. The motorist, Michael Dial, was shot and killed by a deputy after his car ran into a ditch following a chase that rarely topped speeds of 50 mph.
“I love this shit,” Shoupe said, apparently unaware that his comments were being picked up by another deputy’s body-worn camera. “God, I tell you what, I thrive on it.
“If they don’t think I’ll give the damn order to kill that motherfucker they’re full of shit,” he added, laughing. “Take him out. I’m here on the damn wrong end of the county,” he said.
Now Sheriff Shoupe is on the wrong end of a federal lawsuit alleging that his department violated Mr. Dial's civil rights and that Mr. Dial was the victim of excessive force.
The most shocking thing about this episode isn't that the sheriff said what he said, but that he was dumb enough to say it when his voice was being recorded. And just so there is no misunderstanding, Mr. Dial was pulled over for a traffic violation - that's it. He was executed for committing a traffic violation.
Now whether you want to argue that Mr. Dial brought this upon himself by driving away from the scene is up to you. The point remains that he was gunned down for a traffic violation because the sheriff didn't want to scratch the paint on a patrol car. You may be a law and order type who doesn't think the Blue Lives Matter movement isn't a polite cover for racism, but there is nothing that Mr. Dial did that deserved the death penalty.
Now the files of every police shooting under Sheriff Shoupe need to be opened up and examined to determine if there is a pattern of this type of behavior in White County. Every officer involved shooting should now be suspect.
Monday, January 22, 2018
The language we use
I will never forget my English teacher from 7th grade. She drilled into our heads the evil that is the passive voice. If we wrote a sentence using the passive voice in a paper it came back to us with a F circled at the top.
Writing should convey action, she said. Subjects do things. Things don't just happen.
I got the same lesson when I was on the student newspaper in high school. The passive voice was verboten because it said nothing. If you wrote in the passive voice you were lazy. It took a whole lot more verbiage to say nothing than it did to say something. A news article, or a story, is about someone doing something. That's what we want to read.
But that's no longer the case when it comes to the killing of unarmed black men by the police. Suddenly every journalist throws together as many sentences in the passive voice as possible in order to avoid stating who did what.
A police officer never kills an unarmed black man. A police officer never shoots someone. Instead we read that an unarmed black man died after being shot. Or that he died as the result of a shooting.
Then the journalist proceeds to tell us that the victim wasn't a victim but a suspect or defendant or alleged prowler or whatever other words are used to convey that he wasn't a victim of police violence. We are told he had a criminal record - even though the officer who killed him didn't know it at the time he pulled the trigger. We are told he had a criminal record because it makes him less of a victim.
By the use of language, we are told that each of these incidents of police violence are isolated incidents, unfortunate accidents really, in which no one intended for anyone to die. It's like we are supposed to believe that the gun just magically jumped out of the officer's holder and fired itself as the officer looked on in stunned horror as an innocent person was killed. In reality the officer took his gun out of his holster, looked through the sight (or down the barrel) and made the conscious decision to pull the trigger.
But that's an account you will never read in your local paper because that is an account that puts the blame squarely on the person with the gun.
h/t Adam H. Johnson
Writing should convey action, she said. Subjects do things. Things don't just happen.
I got the same lesson when I was on the student newspaper in high school. The passive voice was verboten because it said nothing. If you wrote in the passive voice you were lazy. It took a whole lot more verbiage to say nothing than it did to say something. A news article, or a story, is about someone doing something. That's what we want to read.
But that's no longer the case when it comes to the killing of unarmed black men by the police. Suddenly every journalist throws together as many sentences in the passive voice as possible in order to avoid stating who did what.
A police officer never kills an unarmed black man. A police officer never shoots someone. Instead we read that an unarmed black man died after being shot. Or that he died as the result of a shooting.
"police kill man" (3 words) or "police tase man to death" (5 words) are exceedingly more efficient than "a person died after police deployed a Taser on the individual" (11 words)––a phraseology that exists solely to obscure the police's responsibility in killing someone.
-- Adam H. JohnsonThat language is used to cover up the truth. It's used to put the blame on the victim instead of the officer who pulled the trigger. And journalists do it all the time. Instead of reporting the facts, they repeat the police account of the incident. Instead of asking difficult questions, they blindly accept the official version. It's cheap and it's lazy.
Then the journalist proceeds to tell us that the victim wasn't a victim but a suspect or defendant or alleged prowler or whatever other words are used to convey that he wasn't a victim of police violence. We are told he had a criminal record - even though the officer who killed him didn't know it at the time he pulled the trigger. We are told he had a criminal record because it makes him less of a victim.
By the use of language, we are told that each of these incidents of police violence are isolated incidents, unfortunate accidents really, in which no one intended for anyone to die. It's like we are supposed to believe that the gun just magically jumped out of the officer's holder and fired itself as the officer looked on in stunned horror as an innocent person was killed. In reality the officer took his gun out of his holster, looked through the sight (or down the barrel) and made the conscious decision to pull the trigger.
But that's an account you will never read in your local paper because that is an account that puts the blame squarely on the person with the gun.
h/t Adam H. Johnson
Sunday, December 24, 2017
Merry Christmas from the Bexar County Sheriff's Office
Kameron Prescott was a 6-year-old who lived in a trailer park in Shertz, Texas (just outside San Antonio). I use the word was because on the Friday before Christmas, deputies with the Bexar County Sheriff's Office killed Kameron while shooting en masse at a woman who was a suspect in a car theft.
Earlier in the day officers confronted the woman who was hidden in a closet. Supposedly she pointed a gun at officers and escaped their grasp. Officers conducted a manhunt and tracked the woman to the trailer park.
They opened fire with pistols and rifles when she attempted to break into the trailer in which Kameron lived. The woman was killed - but at least one bullet passed through the outer wall and struck Kameron in the abdomen. Kameron was declared dead after being taken to a hospital.
No gun was recovered from the woman who was the target of the officers' ire.
This incident brings a number of questions to mind. First, why were multiple officers opening fire at a woman in a residential area? Second, why were they firing at a person who had done nothing threatening at that point to police? Third, did no one ever stop to think that a stray bullet could penetrate the outer shell of a mobile home?
Of course the apologists for law enforcement will point out that the woman in question had pulled a gun on police earlier in the day. They will talk about how hard it is to be a cop and how they have to make split-second decisions and that it's not fair to second-guess their decisions.
To which I say - bullshit.
If white folks were being gunned down by police at the rate at which people of color are in this country, there would be riots in the streets of every suburb in America. It's because most people living in their little bubbles don't give a fuck if the police kill a person of color.
They may pipe up about what a tragedy it is that a young boy was killed but they won't think twice about the police shooting and killing a person who was suspected - but never convicted - of a criminal offense. They won't even think twice about the fact that car theft is a non-capital crime. They'll just spout off about how she brought it on herself by not co-operating with the police. Like that somehow justifies murder.
The next time you see a car with a sticker that says "Blue Lives Matter" or "Cops Lives Matter" take a look at the hue of the person driving the car. Those stickers are the "polite" way of saying that the person driving the car thinks it's okay for the police to kill people of color.
They might not be pulling the trigger, but they certainly don't have a problem with it. They are the same people who rail on constantly about what a bad person Colin Kaepernick is for protesting police violence during the playing of the anthem at NFL games. But race has nothing to do with that, does it now?
Meanwhile, no one will be charged with manslaughter or arrested. They might have a little paid vacation to "cool" down.
Kameron Prescott's family isn't so lucky. Nothing will ever fill the void caused by the acts of these officers. Thoughts and prayers will be nothing but an empty gesture made by a bunch of folks who want to appear to care.
This slaughter of innocents must come to an end.
Here is a link to the family's GoFundMe page to raise money for funeral expenses.
Earlier in the day officers confronted the woman who was hidden in a closet. Supposedly she pointed a gun at officers and escaped their grasp. Officers conducted a manhunt and tracked the woman to the trailer park.
They opened fire with pistols and rifles when she attempted to break into the trailer in which Kameron lived. The woman was killed - but at least one bullet passed through the outer wall and struck Kameron in the abdomen. Kameron was declared dead after being taken to a hospital.
No gun was recovered from the woman who was the target of the officers' ire.
This incident brings a number of questions to mind. First, why were multiple officers opening fire at a woman in a residential area? Second, why were they firing at a person who had done nothing threatening at that point to police? Third, did no one ever stop to think that a stray bullet could penetrate the outer shell of a mobile home?
Of course the apologists for law enforcement will point out that the woman in question had pulled a gun on police earlier in the day. They will talk about how hard it is to be a cop and how they have to make split-second decisions and that it's not fair to second-guess their decisions.
To which I say - bullshit.
If white folks were being gunned down by police at the rate at which people of color are in this country, there would be riots in the streets of every suburb in America. It's because most people living in their little bubbles don't give a fuck if the police kill a person of color.
They may pipe up about what a tragedy it is that a young boy was killed but they won't think twice about the police shooting and killing a person who was suspected - but never convicted - of a criminal offense. They won't even think twice about the fact that car theft is a non-capital crime. They'll just spout off about how she brought it on herself by not co-operating with the police. Like that somehow justifies murder.
The next time you see a car with a sticker that says "Blue Lives Matter" or "Cops Lives Matter" take a look at the hue of the person driving the car. Those stickers are the "polite" way of saying that the person driving the car thinks it's okay for the police to kill people of color.
They might not be pulling the trigger, but they certainly don't have a problem with it. They are the same people who rail on constantly about what a bad person Colin Kaepernick is for protesting police violence during the playing of the anthem at NFL games. But race has nothing to do with that, does it now?
Meanwhile, no one will be charged with manslaughter or arrested. They might have a little paid vacation to "cool" down.
Kameron Prescott's family isn't so lucky. Nothing will ever fill the void caused by the acts of these officers. Thoughts and prayers will be nothing but an empty gesture made by a bunch of folks who want to appear to care.
This slaughter of innocents must come to an end.
Here is a link to the family's GoFundMe page to raise money for funeral expenses.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Police shoot unarmed black man (again)
How many more of these police shootings must we witness before it stops? The latest shooting victim, Charles Kinsey, is a caregiver at a group home.
Mr. Kinsey was shot as he lay on the ground with his hands up. He told the police he was a caregiver and that he was trying to take care of an autistic man who walked out of the group home.
Didn't matter. The police shot him anyway.
Why wasn't the officer who shot him arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? Why wasn't he booked into the county jail? Why didn't he sit in custody until someone posted a bond? Why isn't he going to court to answer to the charges against him?
Here is the bullshit response from the police:
“There is preliminary information that North Miami Police Officers were dispatched to the scene after a 911 call was received of an armed male suspect threatening suicide. Arriving officers attempted to negotiate with two men on the scene, one of whom was later identified as suffering from autism. The other man was later identified as an employee of an assisted living facility. At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers discharged his weapon, striking the employee.”
"Later identified." That's funny. Mr. Kinsey identified himself as a caregiver right before he was shot.
Mr. Kinsey was shot as he lay on the ground with his hands up. He told the police he was a caregiver and that he was trying to take care of an autistic man who walked out of the group home.
Didn't matter. The police shot him anyway.
Why wasn't the officer who shot him arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? Why wasn't he booked into the county jail? Why didn't he sit in custody until someone posted a bond? Why isn't he going to court to answer to the charges against him?
Here is the bullshit response from the police:
“There is preliminary information that North Miami Police Officers were dispatched to the scene after a 911 call was received of an armed male suspect threatening suicide. Arriving officers attempted to negotiate with two men on the scene, one of whom was later identified as suffering from autism. The other man was later identified as an employee of an assisted living facility. At some point during the on-scene negotiation, one of the responding officers discharged his weapon, striking the employee.”
"Later identified." That's funny. Mr. Kinsey identified himself as a caregiver right before he was shot.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Praying for hypocrisy
Last week I was at the Fort Bend County Courthouse in Richmond and noticed a church down the road with a sign announcing a prayer service for the Dallas police officers who were killed the previous week.
I couldn't help but wonder if they held prayer services for Alton Sterling or Philando Castile, too.
Pronouncements such as this are the subtle ways we perpetuate racism and prejudice in this country. Bumper stickers reading Back the Blue and Cops' Lives Matter are ways that folks can express their prejudice without being so blatant. And just what the fuck is Pray for Police supposed to mean? They're the ones killing black men at point blank range. Do they want absolution or something?
This is how we indoctrinate our children to accept blindly what they are told by authority figures. This is how we indoctrinate them to hate and look upon those who are different with disdain or fear. Through religion we attempt to paper over the hypocrisy of murder as a sin and blind support of the military and the permanent war.
Interesting how the Jesus fought for the benefit of the downtrodden and spoke for those without a voice while the modern churches that use his name speak for those in power and those with money.
We'll just have to wait and see for whom prayer services are held the next time a young black man is gunned down by a man wearing a badge.
I couldn't help but wonder if they held prayer services for Alton Sterling or Philando Castile, too.
Pronouncements such as this are the subtle ways we perpetuate racism and prejudice in this country. Bumper stickers reading Back the Blue and Cops' Lives Matter are ways that folks can express their prejudice without being so blatant. And just what the fuck is Pray for Police supposed to mean? They're the ones killing black men at point blank range. Do they want absolution or something?
This is how we indoctrinate our children to accept blindly what they are told by authority figures. This is how we indoctrinate them to hate and look upon those who are different with disdain or fear. Through religion we attempt to paper over the hypocrisy of murder as a sin and blind support of the military and the permanent war.
Interesting how the Jesus fought for the benefit of the downtrodden and spoke for those without a voice while the modern churches that use his name speak for those in power and those with money.
We'll just have to wait and see for whom prayer services are held the next time a young black man is gunned down by a man wearing a badge.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Vacation or jail?
After the events of the last few days it's time to end the double-standard in our criminal (in)justice system that we don't talk enough about.
In Dallas last night, five police officers were killed by sniper fire and another six were wounded and taken to the hospital. There was a manhunt. Three suspects were taken into custody and a fourth was found dead - apparently by a self-inflicted gun wound. These men will be placed in the Dallas County Jail. They will be charged with capital murder. Prosecutors will ask that the judge deny them bond - and the judge will acquiesce. They will sit in jail until their cases are disposed of.
In Baton Rouge, Louisiana and just outside St. Paul, Minnesota, police officers murdered black men. In Baton Rouge officers tased and tackled Alton Sterling before shooting him multiple times in the chest and back. In Falcon Heights, Minnesota, Philando Castile was pulled over for having a cracked tail light. After Mr. Castile told the officer he was licensed to carry a gun and was carrying a gun, the officer opened fire and murdered Mr. Castile in front of his girlfriend and his 4-year-old daughter.
Are the police officers in jail? Are they facing charges?
No.
They are all on paid administrative leave.
There is no justice. If you kill a police officer the entire weight of the criminal (in)justice system will come down on you; but, if you are a police officer and you kill a black man, you go on vacation.
And you wonder why this shit continues.
In Dallas last night, five police officers were killed by sniper fire and another six were wounded and taken to the hospital. There was a manhunt. Three suspects were taken into custody and a fourth was found dead - apparently by a self-inflicted gun wound. These men will be placed in the Dallas County Jail. They will be charged with capital murder. Prosecutors will ask that the judge deny them bond - and the judge will acquiesce. They will sit in jail until their cases are disposed of.
In Baton Rouge, Louisiana and just outside St. Paul, Minnesota, police officers murdered black men. In Baton Rouge officers tased and tackled Alton Sterling before shooting him multiple times in the chest and back. In Falcon Heights, Minnesota, Philando Castile was pulled over for having a cracked tail light. After Mr. Castile told the officer he was licensed to carry a gun and was carrying a gun, the officer opened fire and murdered Mr. Castile in front of his girlfriend and his 4-year-old daughter.
Are the police officers in jail? Are they facing charges?
No.
They are all on paid administrative leave.
There is no justice. If you kill a police officer the entire weight of the criminal (in)justice system will come down on you; but, if you are a police officer and you kill a black man, you go on vacation.
And you wonder why this shit continues.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Hypocrisy 101
Last fall 24 year-old Jamar Clark was shot and killed by a Minneapolis police officer. That much is not in dispute.
In March the Hennepin (MN) County Attorney, Mike Freeman, decided not to bring charges against Mark Ringgenberg and Dustin Schwarze, the two officers involved. In justifying his decision, Mr. Freeman ignored eyewitness accounts that Mr. Clark was handcuffed at the time he was shot and killed.
Yesterday the US Attorney in Minneapolis, Andrew Luger, announced that no federal civil rights charges would be filed against either of the officers. Mr. Luger defended his decision by stating that the accounts of what happened that evening were so "deeply conflicted" that he didn't think his office could proceed under the theory that Mr. Clark was handcuffed at the time he was murdered.
How many times has a prosecutor told you that it was up to the jury to decide whether the testimony and evidence was conflicting?
The only time it matters that evidence and witness statements are "deeply conflicted" is when the person being investigated wears a badge for a living. The only time a suspect's denials are given any credence by a prosecutor is when that suspect wears a badge for a living. The only time that a person is actually presumed innocent unless proven guilty is what that person wears a badge for a living.
I don't know what the answer is. Should a local district attorney be allowed to have the last word in whether a police officer should be prosecuted for taking the life of an unarmed person? We all know that the grand jury is used to shield district attorneys from criticism. When prosecutors don't want an indictment they will tell the grand jury to do what they think is right - and then when the grand jury declines to indict, the district attorney can tell the public the decision was taken out of his hands.
And the notion that the Feds should be called in to investigate ignores the reality that federal prosecutors are just as beholden to law enforcement as local prosecutors are - not to mention that murder is a state crime in the first place.
Of course we wouldn't be having this conversation if the mainstream media and public didn't swallow the prosecutor's justifications hook, line and sinker.
In March the Hennepin (MN) County Attorney, Mike Freeman, decided not to bring charges against Mark Ringgenberg and Dustin Schwarze, the two officers involved. In justifying his decision, Mr. Freeman ignored eyewitness accounts that Mr. Clark was handcuffed at the time he was shot and killed.
Yesterday the US Attorney in Minneapolis, Andrew Luger, announced that no federal civil rights charges would be filed against either of the officers. Mr. Luger defended his decision by stating that the accounts of what happened that evening were so "deeply conflicted" that he didn't think his office could proceed under the theory that Mr. Clark was handcuffed at the time he was murdered.
"Given the lack of bruising, the lack of Mr. Clark’s DNA on the handcuffs, and the deeply conflicted testimony about whether he was handcuffed, we determined that we could not pursue this case based on a prosecution theory that Mr. Clark was handcuffed at the time that he was shot. And, in fact, we reached the conclusion, based on all of the evidence that we reviewed, that the evidence suggested that Mr. Clark was not, in fact, handcuffed when he was shot.
Our second area of focus was what happened when Mr. Clark and the two officers were on the ground. We wanted to know whether the available evidence would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers acted in a manner that was objectively unreasonable, even if Mr. Clark was not handcuffed."
-- US Attorney Andrew LugerOf course that reasoning does not work in reverse. How many times have you picked up a case file and found contradictions between what the arresting officer says and what eyewitnesses say? I would ask how that worked out, but, since you're reading a case file in court, we know what happened.
How many times has a prosecutor told you that it was up to the jury to decide whether the testimony and evidence was conflicting?
The only time it matters that evidence and witness statements are "deeply conflicted" is when the person being investigated wears a badge for a living. The only time a suspect's denials are given any credence by a prosecutor is when that suspect wears a badge for a living. The only time that a person is actually presumed innocent unless proven guilty is what that person wears a badge for a living.
I don't know what the answer is. Should a local district attorney be allowed to have the last word in whether a police officer should be prosecuted for taking the life of an unarmed person? We all know that the grand jury is used to shield district attorneys from criticism. When prosecutors don't want an indictment they will tell the grand jury to do what they think is right - and then when the grand jury declines to indict, the district attorney can tell the public the decision was taken out of his hands.
And the notion that the Feds should be called in to investigate ignores the reality that federal prosecutors are just as beholden to law enforcement as local prosecutors are - not to mention that murder is a state crime in the first place.
Of course we wouldn't be having this conversation if the mainstream media and public didn't swallow the prosecutor's justifications hook, line and sinker.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Talking heads are missing the point
Daniel Pantaleo killed Eric Garner by putting him in a choke hold on a Staten Island sidewalk. But Mr. Pantaleo faced no legal sanction for his act because he wore a badge.
In yet another example of how prosecutors manipulate the grand jury process, a New York City grand jury followed the lead of District Attorney Daniel Donovan and returned a no bill against Mr. Pantaleo.
According to the DA's Office, the grand jurors deliberated for about two months, interviewed 50 witnesses and viewed four videos. And, at the end of the presentation, I'm pretty certain the prosecutor said something along the lines of "do what y'all think is right." That's the prompt to return a no bill.
In the aftermath of the DA's decision not to pursue an indictment, talking heads have been calling for increased training for police officers. They have called for an end to the use of choke holds. They have talked about working to change the image the police department has in minority communities.
But all of these suggestions miss the larger point. Mr. Garner was murdered because he was selling single cigarettes on the sidewalk. The very fact that a police officer would take a man to the ground and choke him to death for selling cigarettes on the street isn't a problem with training.
Far from it, in fact.
The Garner case is yet another episode that illustrates the simple fact that the police are but tools of social control for the ruling class. Until we come to understand this, the killings of unarmed black and brown men will continue.
In yet another example of how prosecutors manipulate the grand jury process, a New York City grand jury followed the lead of District Attorney Daniel Donovan and returned a no bill against Mr. Pantaleo.
According to the DA's Office, the grand jurors deliberated for about two months, interviewed 50 witnesses and viewed four videos. And, at the end of the presentation, I'm pretty certain the prosecutor said something along the lines of "do what y'all think is right." That's the prompt to return a no bill.
In the aftermath of the DA's decision not to pursue an indictment, talking heads have been calling for increased training for police officers. They have called for an end to the use of choke holds. They have talked about working to change the image the police department has in minority communities.
But all of these suggestions miss the larger point. Mr. Garner was murdered because he was selling single cigarettes on the sidewalk. The very fact that a police officer would take a man to the ground and choke him to death for selling cigarettes on the street isn't a problem with training.
Far from it, in fact.
The Garner case is yet another episode that illustrates the simple fact that the police are but tools of social control for the ruling class. Until we come to understand this, the killings of unarmed black and brown men will continue.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Passing the buck, Missouri-style
Enough.
The Grand Jury didn't choose not to indict Darren Wilson. The St. Louis County District Attorney made that decision. For the uninitiated, let's take a look at how the grand jury system works.
The first thing to remember is that the system is stacked in the prosecutor's favor. There is no voir dire when a grand jury is selected. Due to time concerns, most of the folks who serve on grand juries are retired or hold jobs that allow them to take chunks of time off without reprisal. In many jurisdictions, grand jury commissioners are appointed and they select the grand jury - little need to worry about the grand jury reflecting the diversity of the population in that scenario, however.
Grand juries originally were envisioned to screen cases so that citizens accused of a crime wouldn't face public shame if there was insufficient evidence to go forward. They still serve a screen purpose today - and that's just what St. Louis County DA Robert McCulloch used the grand jury for in this case.
Prosecutors hate bad publicity. But what they really hate is having to make a controversial decision that's going to piss off folks that might vote for them. In a case in which folks are going to be angered one way or the other, the DA looks for someone else to take the heat. And that "someone else" is the grand jury.
The prosecutor is the only person who puts forward evidence before the grand jury. Yes, the (potential) defendant might testify, but only under certain conditions would an attorney take that tack. The prosecutor calls the witnesses, submits the evidence and pushes the grand jury down the path he wants them to take.
Then, once the grand jury announces its decision, the District Attorney can tell everyone within earshot that it was the grand jury's decision to proceed or not. Of course the general public never hears the prosecutor urge the grand jury to indict ("just think of the message it would send to the community if you didn't") or "do what you think is right."
The entire process in the Ferguson case was a circus from the beginning. Most grand jury presentments last but a few minutes and consist of little more than the prosecutor summarizing an offense report. Whatever evidence is submitted is never disclosed - unless the defense attorney can convince a judge that someone is playing fast and loose with the rules.
Mr. McCulloch dragged out this process and did everything in his power to color the facts and bury the case. The case took almost a month to present. He called 60 witnesses. He released all of the information presented to the grand jury. His press conference consisted of him blaming Michael Brown and the media for everything.
He's the one who decided to announce the decision at 8:00 p.m. He's the one who decided to give the people hours upon hours to stew. He's the one who decided to smear Michael Brown's name before the national media.
But we are to believe that any anger folks are feeling about the no-bill should be directed at twelve citizens who did as they were told?
The Grand Jury didn't choose not to indict Darren Wilson. The St. Louis County District Attorney made that decision. For the uninitiated, let's take a look at how the grand jury system works.
The first thing to remember is that the system is stacked in the prosecutor's favor. There is no voir dire when a grand jury is selected. Due to time concerns, most of the folks who serve on grand juries are retired or hold jobs that allow them to take chunks of time off without reprisal. In many jurisdictions, grand jury commissioners are appointed and they select the grand jury - little need to worry about the grand jury reflecting the diversity of the population in that scenario, however.
Grand juries originally were envisioned to screen cases so that citizens accused of a crime wouldn't face public shame if there was insufficient evidence to go forward. They still serve a screen purpose today - and that's just what St. Louis County DA Robert McCulloch used the grand jury for in this case.
Prosecutors hate bad publicity. But what they really hate is having to make a controversial decision that's going to piss off folks that might vote for them. In a case in which folks are going to be angered one way or the other, the DA looks for someone else to take the heat. And that "someone else" is the grand jury.
The prosecutor is the only person who puts forward evidence before the grand jury. Yes, the (potential) defendant might testify, but only under certain conditions would an attorney take that tack. The prosecutor calls the witnesses, submits the evidence and pushes the grand jury down the path he wants them to take.
Then, once the grand jury announces its decision, the District Attorney can tell everyone within earshot that it was the grand jury's decision to proceed or not. Of course the general public never hears the prosecutor urge the grand jury to indict ("just think of the message it would send to the community if you didn't") or "do what you think is right."
The entire process in the Ferguson case was a circus from the beginning. Most grand jury presentments last but a few minutes and consist of little more than the prosecutor summarizing an offense report. Whatever evidence is submitted is never disclosed - unless the defense attorney can convince a judge that someone is playing fast and loose with the rules.
Mr. McCulloch dragged out this process and did everything in his power to color the facts and bury the case. The case took almost a month to present. He called 60 witnesses. He released all of the information presented to the grand jury. His press conference consisted of him blaming Michael Brown and the media for everything.
He's the one who decided to announce the decision at 8:00 p.m. He's the one who decided to give the people hours upon hours to stew. He's the one who decided to smear Michael Brown's name before the national media.
But we are to believe that any anger folks are feeling about the no-bill should be directed at twelve citizens who did as they were told?
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Sending in the stormtroopers to quell dissent
Back on August 9 of this year, Ferguson (MO) police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager. The killing lit a powder keg of pent-up tensions in the St. Louis suburb. The world witnessed police paramilitary units patrolling the streets of Ferguson in riot gear and firing tear gas cannisters and rubber bullets into crowds.
Now, more than three months later, tensions are once again on the rise in Ferguson as everyone awaits the decision of a St. Louis County grand jury investigating the shooting. The local District Attorney refused to recuse himself and the governor resisted calls for a special prosecutor.
If our history is any guide, the grand jury will choose to no-bill the officer either because the DA made no effort to obtain an indictment or because Mr. Wilson wears a badge. Police officers just don't get indicted unless the evidence is undeniable as to what they did.
In anticipation of a no-bill, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has declared a state of emergency in St. Louis County. The reason given is the need to preserve law and order and to protect people and property. Of course, if you stop to think about it, sending in the paramilitaries when they are the ones responsible for the unrest in the first place makes absolutely no sense. But that hasn't stopped Gov. Nixon.
Nope. You know the last thing Mr. Nixon and his band of wealthy white supporters want to see is a bunch of black people marching and carrying signs reminding folks that racism and oppression are still alive and well in the Show Me State. His declaration is but an attempt to intimidate people into not exercising their right to seek redress of their grievances. By upping the ante with a bunch of black-clad Stormtroopers carrying the latest gear obtained from the US Defense Department and military contractors, Gov. Nixon has assured us of a confrontation.
Mr. Nixon has done nothing since the night Mr. Brown was murdered to address the concerns of the citizens of Ferguson. He has nothing to address the concerns of African-Americans living elsewhere in the state. He has done nothing to address the issue of police brutality. He has done nothing to address concerns over the militarization of the police.
Police officers are supposed to be members of the community. Their job is to serve and protect those around them. But, when you put riot gear on an officer and give him a helmet and a visor, those he's standing across from become the enemy. It's no longer everyone working together, now it's us against them. These paramilitaries are the last line of defense for the Establishment against those who aren't wealthy and/or white.
Wearing a badge does not give one carte blanche to kill people. Police officers are not above the law, they are subject to the same laws that the rest of us are. Maybe one day we'll realize that.
Now, more than three months later, tensions are once again on the rise in Ferguson as everyone awaits the decision of a St. Louis County grand jury investigating the shooting. The local District Attorney refused to recuse himself and the governor resisted calls for a special prosecutor.
If our history is any guide, the grand jury will choose to no-bill the officer either because the DA made no effort to obtain an indictment or because Mr. Wilson wears a badge. Police officers just don't get indicted unless the evidence is undeniable as to what they did.
In anticipation of a no-bill, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has declared a state of emergency in St. Louis County. The reason given is the need to preserve law and order and to protect people and property. Of course, if you stop to think about it, sending in the paramilitaries when they are the ones responsible for the unrest in the first place makes absolutely no sense. But that hasn't stopped Gov. Nixon.
Nope. You know the last thing Mr. Nixon and his band of wealthy white supporters want to see is a bunch of black people marching and carrying signs reminding folks that racism and oppression are still alive and well in the Show Me State. His declaration is but an attempt to intimidate people into not exercising their right to seek redress of their grievances. By upping the ante with a bunch of black-clad Stormtroopers carrying the latest gear obtained from the US Defense Department and military contractors, Gov. Nixon has assured us of a confrontation.
Mr. Nixon has done nothing since the night Mr. Brown was murdered to address the concerns of the citizens of Ferguson. He has nothing to address the concerns of African-Americans living elsewhere in the state. He has done nothing to address the issue of police brutality. He has done nothing to address concerns over the militarization of the police.
Police officers are supposed to be members of the community. Their job is to serve and protect those around them. But, when you put riot gear on an officer and give him a helmet and a visor, those he's standing across from become the enemy. It's no longer everyone working together, now it's us against them. These paramilitaries are the last line of defense for the Establishment against those who aren't wealthy and/or white.
Wearing a badge does not give one carte blanche to kill people. Police officers are not above the law, they are subject to the same laws that the rest of us are. Maybe one day we'll realize that.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Judge, jury and executioner
Yes the police have a job to do. It can be a hard job and it can damn sure be a dangerous job at times. But just because you wear a uniform with a badge and carry a gun doesn't mean you have carte blanche to decide who lives and who dies.
Last August in Sherman, Texas (about an hour north of Dallas), Mary Surratt was stopped for not signaling a lane change. She was arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car without being searched. While in the back of the car, Ms. Surratt tried to ingest cocaine she had on her person.
An unnamed police officer then began hitting Ms. Surratt with his fist and a flashlight to try to get her to spit out the cocaine. When that didn't work he pressed his flashlight against Ms. Surratt's neck until she passed out. The officers then took her out of the car and tased her while she lay on the ground unconscious.
Ms. Surratt lie on the ground for more than 20 minutes before she was taken to a local hospital where she was declared to be in a vegetative state. She died less than a month later.
By all accounts Ms. Surratt broke the law. But even had she been convicted of possessing cocaine, at most she would have ended up in state jail - more than likely she would have landed on probation (or even deferred adjudication). She certainly wouldn't have been sentenced to death.
The officers involved in the stop and detention (and death) of Ms. Surratt might have been pissed off that she was getting rid of evidence in the back of their patrol car - but that didn't give them the right to cut off her air supply and kill her.
Why did it happen? I don't know for certain but I would guess that it has something to do with the current military vibe in police departments across the country in which the police go out into the street with an "Us versus Them" attitude. Once the police take the view that it's them against the world, the notion that the police are there to protect and serve goes out the window. When that happens someone is getting the short end of the stick when they don't jump high enough for an officer.
Ms. Surratt was that person last August. Whether anything happens to the officers involved will tell us whether the City of Sherman is more interested in protecting and serving or in waging war on "them."
Last August in Sherman, Texas (about an hour north of Dallas), Mary Surratt was stopped for not signaling a lane change. She was arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car without being searched. While in the back of the car, Ms. Surratt tried to ingest cocaine she had on her person.
An unnamed police officer then began hitting Ms. Surratt with his fist and a flashlight to try to get her to spit out the cocaine. When that didn't work he pressed his flashlight against Ms. Surratt's neck until she passed out. The officers then took her out of the car and tased her while she lay on the ground unconscious.
Ms. Surratt lie on the ground for more than 20 minutes before she was taken to a local hospital where she was declared to be in a vegetative state. She died less than a month later.
By all accounts Ms. Surratt broke the law. But even had she been convicted of possessing cocaine, at most she would have ended up in state jail - more than likely she would have landed on probation (or even deferred adjudication). She certainly wouldn't have been sentenced to death.
The officers involved in the stop and detention (and death) of Ms. Surratt might have been pissed off that she was getting rid of evidence in the back of their patrol car - but that didn't give them the right to cut off her air supply and kill her.
Why did it happen? I don't know for certain but I would guess that it has something to do with the current military vibe in police departments across the country in which the police go out into the street with an "Us versus Them" attitude. Once the police take the view that it's them against the world, the notion that the police are there to protect and serve goes out the window. When that happens someone is getting the short end of the stick when they don't jump high enough for an officer.
Ms. Surratt was that person last August. Whether anything happens to the officers involved will tell us whether the City of Sherman is more interested in protecting and serving or in waging war on "them."
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Two years awaiting trial; so much for the presumption of innocence
One way to quell dissent is to lock up the dissenters so that no one can listen to them.You can do this by overcharging on a criminal complaint, by asking for an unreasonable level of bail or both.
Cecily McMillan has been held behind bars by New York prosecutors for almost two years. Her trial on charges she assaulted a New York City police officer was to begin yesterday. After clearing procedural hurdles, and scheduling around court holidays, jury selection is scheduled to begin on Thursday and the government should present its case on Friday.
Ms. McMillan was charged with felony assault after she elbowed an officer beneath his eye at a Zuccotti Park protest back in March of 2012. Prosecutors claim Ms. McMillan deliberately elbowed the officer in the face as members of Occupy Wall Street fought with the police. Ms. McMillan claims that someone behind her grabbed her breast and she swung her elbow to protect herself. After her elbow made contact Ms. McMillan was viciously beaten by the police and arrested.
There was no need for Ms. McMillan to suffer the beating she did. She was one person. The officer wasn't seriously injured. Yet the beating commenced. And once it began there was no stopping it until the adrenaline ran out. What happened to Ms. McMillan on the street was far worse than what happened to the officer.
Now aside from the legal issues of what constitutes intentional or knowing action in this case, there is a bigger issue. The crime for which Ms. McMillan was charged is a Class D felony for which she faces a maximum sentence of seven years.
But let's keep in mind that Ms. McMillan is innocent unless proven otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt by the government. And for that reason alone she should not have spent the last 23 months confined to a cell. Her confinement was a means to coerce her into entering a plea that would resolve the case and leave her with a criminal record for the rest of her life.
Her confinement also shows the divide between the attitudes of prosecutors and the rest of society. For a prosecutor, a sentence is but a number that can be thrown around as if it were handed down by a god. There are no consequences for a prosecutor - he or she is going home every evening after work regardless of what happens.
For the rest of us, those numbers represent a tragedy. Someone's mother or father or daughter or son or sister or brother is going to be taken away. Arrangements must be made so that whoever is left on the outside can take care of everyone else. The situation is only magnified when judges and prosecutors play games with bail and lock up innocent folks for months or years while they await resolution of their cases.
Now there can be little doubt that the police in New York City (and elsewhere across the country) overreacted in their response to the Occupy! movement. There was no reason to clear parks by force when folks all over this country were organizing and exercising their constitutional right to assemble and petition the government for their grievances.
If things got out of hand that night at Zuccotti Park then we should be looking at the leadership of the New York City Police Department who instead of carrying out their supposed duty to protect and defend the residents of New York City, turned their weapons on the citizenry to clear a park at the behest of Wall Street interests.
Even if you believe the government's account of what happened that night, there is no excuse to lock up a young woman without a criminal record for two years. If bail were set at a level higher than that which she could afford to post, then it should have been lowered. After all, bail is not a punitive measure, it is merely a means of guaranteeing a defendant's appearance in court. Holding someone behind bars for two years serves only to make it more difficult to defend a case. It certainly doesn't advance the cause of justice.
Cecily McMillan has been held behind bars by New York prosecutors for almost two years. Her trial on charges she assaulted a New York City police officer was to begin yesterday. After clearing procedural hurdles, and scheduling around court holidays, jury selection is scheduled to begin on Thursday and the government should present its case on Friday.
Ms. McMillan was charged with felony assault after she elbowed an officer beneath his eye at a Zuccotti Park protest back in March of 2012. Prosecutors claim Ms. McMillan deliberately elbowed the officer in the face as members of Occupy Wall Street fought with the police. Ms. McMillan claims that someone behind her grabbed her breast and she swung her elbow to protect herself. After her elbow made contact Ms. McMillan was viciously beaten by the police and arrested.
There was no need for Ms. McMillan to suffer the beating she did. She was one person. The officer wasn't seriously injured. Yet the beating commenced. And once it began there was no stopping it until the adrenaline ran out. What happened to Ms. McMillan on the street was far worse than what happened to the officer.
Now aside from the legal issues of what constitutes intentional or knowing action in this case, there is a bigger issue. The crime for which Ms. McMillan was charged is a Class D felony for which she faces a maximum sentence of seven years.
But let's keep in mind that Ms. McMillan is innocent unless proven otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt by the government. And for that reason alone she should not have spent the last 23 months confined to a cell. Her confinement was a means to coerce her into entering a plea that would resolve the case and leave her with a criminal record for the rest of her life.
Her confinement also shows the divide between the attitudes of prosecutors and the rest of society. For a prosecutor, a sentence is but a number that can be thrown around as if it were handed down by a god. There are no consequences for a prosecutor - he or she is going home every evening after work regardless of what happens.
For the rest of us, those numbers represent a tragedy. Someone's mother or father or daughter or son or sister or brother is going to be taken away. Arrangements must be made so that whoever is left on the outside can take care of everyone else. The situation is only magnified when judges and prosecutors play games with bail and lock up innocent folks for months or years while they await resolution of their cases.
Now there can be little doubt that the police in New York City (and elsewhere across the country) overreacted in their response to the Occupy! movement. There was no reason to clear parks by force when folks all over this country were organizing and exercising their constitutional right to assemble and petition the government for their grievances.
If things got out of hand that night at Zuccotti Park then we should be looking at the leadership of the New York City Police Department who instead of carrying out their supposed duty to protect and defend the residents of New York City, turned their weapons on the citizenry to clear a park at the behest of Wall Street interests.
Even if you believe the government's account of what happened that night, there is no excuse to lock up a young woman without a criminal record for two years. If bail were set at a level higher than that which she could afford to post, then it should have been lowered. After all, bail is not a punitive measure, it is merely a means of guaranteeing a defendant's appearance in court. Holding someone behind bars for two years serves only to make it more difficult to defend a case. It certainly doesn't advance the cause of justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)