General Police Abuse Thread

[Dominus Atheos]

Police Warriors or Community Guardians?

Tamir Rice. John Crawford. Akai Gurley. Eric Garner. The list of men, especially men of color, who have been killed by police continues to grow with the recent death of Walter Scott. These tragedies are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a systemic problem: a police culture that trains and encourages officers to adopt a “warrior mindset.” As a former officer, I’ve been immersed in that culture. As a scholar who studies policing, I’ve seen how the warrior mindset, though adopted with the very best of intentions, has led to unnecessary violence and undermined police/community relations. In short, modern policing has developed a “warrior” problem.

Originally, the “warrior mindset” referred to the mental tenacity and attitude that officers, like soldiers, are taught to adopt in the face of a life-threatening struggle. In this context, the warrior mindset is a bone-deep commitment to survive a bad situation no matter the odds or difficulty. So narrowly defined, the concept is not problematic—indeed, it is commendable.

Unfortunately, the concept has mutated far beyond its original, limited meaning. Instead of applying to only the most dangerous and daunting situations, the warrior mindset now instructs officers on how to approach every aspect of their job. From their earliest days in the academy, would-be officers are told that their primary objective is to go home at the end of every shift. But, they are taught, they live in an intensely hostile world—one that is, quite literally, gunning for them. A recent article written by an officer for Police Magazine opens with this description: “The dangers we expose ourselves to every time we go [on duty] are almost immeasurable. We know this the day we sign up and the academy certainly does a good job of hammering the point home.” Training materials at the New Mexico Police Academy inform recruits that criminal suspects “are mentally prepared to react violently” adding, “[Y]ou could die today, tomorrow, or next Friday.”

In this worldview, officers are warriors combatting unknown and unpredictable—but highly lethal—enemies. They learn to be afraid. Officers don’t use that word, of course. Vigilant, attentive, cautious, alert, or observant are the terms that appear most often in police publications. But officers learn to be vigilant, attentive, cautious, alert, and observant because they are afraid, and they afraid because they’re taught to be.

As a result, officers learn to treat every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making. Every individual, every situation — no exceptions. A popular police training text offers this advice: “As you approach any situation, you want to be in the habit of looking for cover[] so you can react automatically to reach it should trouble erupt.” A more recent article puts it even more bluntly: “Remain humble and compassionate; be professional and courteous — and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.”

The warrior mindset creates a substantial, if invisible, barrier to good community policing. At its core, community policing relies on building “[c]ollaborative partnerships” so as to better identify community problems and “develop and evaluate effective responses.” To fulfill the promises of community policing, officers must establish meaningful relationships with individual community members. Imagine, however, that you are a rookie police officer driving down the street and looking to do some community policing. But you have been told (repeatedly) that your survival depends on believing that everyone you see — literally everyone — is capable of, and may very well be interested in, killing you. Would you actually get out of your car and approach someone? And if you did, would you stroll up to start a casual conversation or would you advance cautiously, ask for identification, run a criminal background check, and request consent to search … and then, maybe, try to start that casual conversation? The latter, of course, is what many officers are taught to do. My first ever “consensual encounter,” only hours into my first day of field training, followed exactly that pattern: after spending a few short minutes interacting with a young black transsexual, I left secure in the knowledge that she wasn’t armed and didn’t have any outstanding warrants. I knew almost nothing else about her undoubtedly complex and interesting life, and she knew even less about me. That approach, repeated over hundreds or thousands of police/civilian interactions, hinders the creation of meaningful, collaborative relationships.

Counterintuitively, the warrior mentality also makes policing less safe for both officers and civilians. Officers learn to both verbally and physically control the space they operate in. They learn that it is essential to set the proper tone for an encounter, and the tone that best preserves officer safety is widely thought to be one of “unquestioned command.” Even acting friendly, officers are told, can make them a target. But like the use of physical force, the assertive manner in which officers set the tone of encounter can also set the stage for a negative response or a violent interaction—one that was, from the start, avoidable. From the warrior perspective, the solution is simple: the people with whom officers interact must accede, respecting officers’ authority by doing what they are told. The failure to comply is confirmation that the individual is an enemy for the warrior to vanquish, physically if necessary. And remember that officers are trained to expect threats. Our brains are wired so that we see what we expect to see; given their training, it’s no surprise that officers react to threats that don’t actually exist. The result is avoidable violence.

Of course, violence is relatively uncommon; the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports police use physical force in about 1.5% of all encounters between police and public. But the small percentage masks a high absolute number: police interact with civilians about 63 million times a year. That means that, at a minimum, officers somewhere in the country use force close to a million times a year—or almost 2,600 times every day. Further, an officer who needlessly aggravates a situation doesn’t just increase the risk he faces in that specific encounter; he or she also increases the risk that other officers will face in future encounters. An aggressive approach in individual interactions can exacerbate underlying social tensions in a way that fuels a dangerous fire. This is not a new observation. As early as 1931, the Wickersham Commission, convened by President Herbert Hoover to investigate the problems with Prohibition enforcement, reported: “High-handed methods, shootings and killings, even where justified, alienate[] thoughtful citizens, believers in law and order. Unfortunate public expressions … approving killings and promiscuous shootings and lawless raids and seizures and deprecating the constitutional guarantees involved[] aggravate[] this effect.” In fact, of the ten most destructive and violent riots in United States history, fully half were responses to perceived police abuses. The expansive version of the warrior mentality promotes aggressive tactics; those tactics contribute to unnecessary violence; and the fierce rhetoric that follows further fans the flames.

The Warrior has created problems for law enforcement, but another model— the Guardian—may offer some solutions. So what’s the difference? Both Warriors and Guardians seek to protect the communities they serve, of course, but the guardian mindset takes both a broader and a longer view of how to achieve that goal. Put simply, the guardian mindset prioritizes service over crime-fighting, and it values the dynamics of short-term encounters as a way to create long-term relationships. It instructs officers that their interactions with community members must be more than legally justified; they must also be empowering, fair, respectful, and considerate. It emphasizes communication over command, cooperation over compliance, and legitimacy over authority. In the use-of-force context, the Guardian mindset emphasizes restraint over control, stability over action. But the concept is even broader; it seeks to protect civilians not just from crime and violence, but also from indignity and humiliation.

Here are some practical suggestions for training Guardian Officers instead of Police Warriors:

Non-enforcement Contacts. Officers should be required to initiate non-enforcement contacts with community members. Building on the “Good Strangers” and “Tact, Tactics and Trust” training that grew out of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Strategic Social Interaction Modules training, a “non-enforcement contact” means an interaction in which officers are prohibited (except in emergencies, of course) from taking enforcement actions: no asking for identification, no running criminal history checks, no issuing tickets, and no making arrests. The purpose is threefold: give officers and community members the chance to get to know each other as individuals, emphasize the agencies’ visible commitment to community policing, and teach officers communications skills that they will use countless times over the course of their careers.

De-escalation Training. More than 98 per cent of police academies provide training in deadly force, less-lethal force, and less-than-lethal force. On average, recruits get over 160 hours of instruction in these topics. Fewer academies—88 per cent—train recruits in mediation or conflict resolution, and those offer, on average, a paltry 8 hours. For some officers—born talkers—that’s more than enough. Others find these skills harder to acquire. But talking to people, managing conflict without violence, is a learnable skill that all officers would benefit from having.

Integrated, Scenario-Based Training. Ask any police instructor for the ideal way to teach recruits physical skills and they’ll tell you that it is scenario-based role-playing training where they can practice in a realistic, responsive, and free-form environment. The same is true of de-escalation training. De-escalation is an effective tool in tense situations, but, like unarmed combat, it requires practice in a dynamic, high-pressure environment. Teaching de-escalation only in the classroom simply does not give officers confidence in their skills. Without that confidence, officers are far more likely to fall back on physical violence.

Informed Training. Right now, police training is highly responsive to a very limited set of situations: when an officer is seriously injured or killed, police trainers across the country engage in an in-depth analysis, in order to learn from the incident so it never happens again. We should demand the same approach when civilians are seriously injured or killed. Too many police agencies reflexively refuse to do anything that looks like second-guessing, in part because of concerns about legal liability and morale. That refusal is a missed opportunity to learn how to avoid future tragedy.

Tactical Restraint. The use of force, including deadly force, will sometimes be necessary. But when violence is avoidable and when avoiding it doesn’t sacrifice the police mission, officers should be required to use tactical restraint even when that means holding their position or temporarily withdrawing. From the guardian perspective, reducing the chances of finding a situation that requires violent response minimizes risk to police officers and the public. Officers are safer, which means that civilians are safer. I’ve described tactical restraint at more length in a recent piece in the Harvard Law Review Forum, so I’ll summarize by noting that tactical restraint encourages officers to work smarter, not harder, by relying more on good tactics and communication than on violence. This is why officers at most agencies are told to wait for back-up before physically making an arrest or tackling a running suspect. Using tactical restraint protects officers and civilians alike, which is exactly the approach Guardians should favor.

It will take more than the changes I’ve suggested here to change police culture and to heal the long-standing divide between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve, particularly communities of color. Earning public trust will take years, if not decades, and it will require deep changes to police training, culture, and accountability mechanisms. But we can, we must, start now. We should start by rejecting the concept of the Police Warrior and adopting instead the Guardian Officer.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-mi ... 055130.php#

[Dominus Atheos]

And the last one today: NOT police abuse:



His body cam? Not police-issued, a relative gave it to him and he wore it voluntarily.

Now THAT is a hero cop.

[TheFeniX]

Nitpick. Stabbing someone is considered deadly force. Police service dogs are not considered deadly force. There is significant court precedence behind this decision.

And punching someone isn't deadly force, yet repeated blows easily qualify. Using a dog to subdue someone isn't deadly force, but having a dog attack the face of someone could easily qualify. Luckily, this guy only got maimed, rather than killed, by a poorly trained animal.

If they failed to call for EMS and/or failed to stop a serious bleeding injury then I would agree with you. In addition calling for EMS satisfies this requirement as long as they aren't in danger of bleeding out. Also, police in areas with good EMS coverage generally aren't medically trained.

Cleaning and applying pressure to open wounds is medical training now? Shit, I'm required by my job to be first-aid trained and carry a first-aid kit and I just mostly pump water out of monitoring wells. It's not rocket science and might go a good way to improve PR with cops, as I'll go into a bit later. But I'll go ahead and say now: it's pretty clear PR doesn't mean shit to cops anymore. Used to be they needed a rapport with the locals so they could do their job. But now any judge will sign off on a SWAT team and that military equipment isn't going to depreciate itself.

Because a criminal will tend to your wounds after they inflict them on you. I understand not trusting the police. That's fine but don't go from reasonable to full retard.

No, I just know where I stand with someone actively trying to kill me and I'm not required to let them roll over me. I've got a fairly good chance at coming out of that alive. Cops bust in (which would mean wrong house, so at best they're incompetent): my same reaction pretty much guarantees I'm either dead or in jail for a long time.

Would you prefer they didn't photograph injuries they inflict?

Videos like the one we're talking about only go to show (at least me) cops give a load more fucks about making sure they cover their asses than the health of the person they just maimed. The guy is already going to get shat on by the court system for being untrained in the "do what I say exactly when I say it or we'll pile on more charges" department. Multiple officers standing around a bleeding suspect, shining lights in his eyes, all to get better pictures of their "kill." Best part is dropping a fucking chair on the guy's head and not even bothering to apologize.

You want to talk about "policy" and what cops need to do to protect themselves: fine. But I've seen more than enough videos of cops treating people more like animals than anything, so I'm not exactly crying tears for them. That's the real damage these videos show: once you end up on the wrong side of a police gun, you barely register as human.

And before Stand Your Ground laws in Texas, if I did shoot someone and the first cop on scene saw me taking photos: bet good money the prosecutor would fucking crucify me.

Right, because photographing injuries is such a bullshit policy.

When that policy comes at the expense of the health of people in your custody? I think cops should be more concerned with the well-being of suspects in custody than "lemme get some pics of that." Especially when they're taking pictures of bodily areas that get you tossed in jail for showing. But cops don't mind humiliating people after a dog's been ripping their ass apart for like 30 seconds. Don't see any evidence the dog pulled the underwear all the way down (as the cop tried and failed to remove the dog). So cops, no medical training, have the right to disrobe people for ass-shot? Tell me, if the dog got ahold of his junk, could the cops all stand around taking pictures of his dick due to policy? Does this policy apply to female suspects? Children?

EDIT: want to ask, those cell phones provided by the department? Personal? Required passwords? Nothing like having pictures of your ass on some cop's personal phone.

I know this makes me a huge fucking moron for wanting cops to treat people (yes, even scumbag felons) like actual people, but whatever. Like I said: "Policy" for cops is all about protecting them, not civilians. It's a fallback so when someone does sue (and win) no one is held accountable but the taxpayer.

According to the video it was five seconds from when he complied with the order to get both hands up. Though you could see his hands were resting above his head. I also think burning anothers trash doesn't qualify as arson. However, there was the issue of him threatening to stab people but both of those incidents are questionable and are unlikely to be proven unless there is video or third party witnesses that we don't know about.

15 seconds after being told to get up, with no movement on his part, just a blank stare at the officer: he got a face-full of Shepherd. I don't see any difference between than and if the cop had instead kicked him in the face. The "threat" the suspect poses at that point is only implied, policy or not. And reacting to implied threats, which end up getting people killed, is probably why people don't really know what to do around cops.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And punching someone isn't deadly force, yet repeated blows easily qualify. Using a dog to subdue someone isn't deadly force, but having a dog attack the face of someone could easily qualify. Luckily, this guy only got maimed, rather than killed, by a poorly trained animal.

Probably the throat more than the face but I don't disagree with your overall point. The thing is I was responding to your comparison of a knife versus a dog. A knife is always considered deadly force a dog is not because a dog is trained to go for the arms and legs. This was my point and calling it deadly force because an accident happens isn't valid. Sorry.

Cleaning and applying pressure to open wounds is medical training now? Shit, I'm required by my job to be first-aid trained and carry a first-aid kit and I just mostly pump water out of monitoring wells.

My point was that because police in these areas are trained medically they tend not to carry medical equipment on their person.

It's not rocket science and might go a good way to improve PR with cops, as I'll go into a bit later. But I'll go ahead and say now: it's pretty clear PR doesn't mean shit to cops anymore. Used to be they needed a rapport with the locals so they could do their job. But now any judge will sign off on a SWAT team and that military equipment isn't going to depreciate itself.

You're right. It isn't rocket science. It also isn't rocket science to understand that this man wasn't in any danger of bleeding out (hell later in the video he is in the hospital still not bandaged up) and since EMS response is excellent in these areas there is no issue with waiting for properly trained and equipped people.

No, I just know where I stand with someone actively trying to kill me and I'm not required to let them roll over me. I've got a fairly good chance at coming out of that alive. Cops bust in (which would mean wrong house, so at best they're incompetent): my same reaction pretty much guarantees I'm either dead or in jail for a long time.

Fair enough. Though I have to ask because it seems you're implying that your "same reaction" is to fire on people you haven't identified. Isn't that a violation of one of the rules of a firearm safety? "Be sure of your target"?

Videos like the one we're talking about only go to show (at least me) cops give a load more fucks about making sure they cover their asses than the health of the person they just maimed. The guy is already going to get shat on by the court system for being untrained in the "do what I say exactly when I say it or we'll pile on more charges" department.

I don't know man. 15 seconds is an awfully long time. I don't know if that qualifies for the point you're making here.

Multiple officers standing around a bleeding suspect, shining lights in his eyes, all to get better pictures of their "kill." Best part is dropping a fucking chair on the guy's head and not even bothering to apologize.

Watch the video again. There was one officer photographing, one assisting with the photographing, and one using a flashlight (which he never pointed in the guys eyes you can tell this because the brightest point never hit his face). It seems like you're just projecting at this point.

You want to talk about "policy" and what cops need to do to protect themselves: fine. But I've seen more than enough videos of cops treating people more like animals than anything, so I'm not exactly crying tears for them. That's the real damage these videos show: once you end up on the wrong side of a police gun, you barely register as human.

Photographing injuries does more than protect police. It also serves as documentation for the victim/suspect of exactly what the police did to him.

And before Stand Your Ground laws in Texas, if I did shoot someone and the first cop on scene saw me taking photos: bet good money the prosecutor would fucking crucify me.

Gunshots usually result in serious bleeding injuries so you'd be rightfully charged. This incident does not qualify. Your argument is basically "they aren't engaged in good PR!" which isn't necessarily invalid but don't compare you shooting someone to this. It's absurd.

When that policy comes at the expense of the health of people in your custody? I think cops should be more concerned with the well-being of suspects in custody than "lemme get some pics of that."

How was his health in danger? Why are you continuing to project a cowboy attitude with the following of policy? I would agree if there were multiple officers taking pictures, officers exchanging high-fives, or making "that's cool" comments" but there was none of that and only one officer taking pictures in a clearly documentation type role.

Especially when they're taking pictures of bodily areas that get you tossed in jail for showing.

You're joking right? This is absurd. Tell me, TheFenix. Do you know what a SANE nurse does? Uh oh! Hey watch out! There's a picture of a vagina on Wikipedia. You sound like a child or an evangelical Christian right now. There is a difference between documentation for scientific and court purposes versus for entertaining or self gratification.

But cops don't mind humiliating people after a dog's been ripping their ass apart for like 30 seconds. Don't see any evidence the dog pulled the underwear all the way down (as the cop tried and failed to remove the dog). So cops, no medical training, have the right to disrobe people for ass-shot? Tell me, if the dog got ahold of his junk, could the cops all stand around taking pictures of his dick due to policy? Does this policy apply to female suspects? Children?

One cop taking pictures not multiple. Yes, this policy does apply to females and children. Though there are specific requirements when photographing intimate areas of adults such as having someone of the same sex conduct the photographing and providing privacy if there are onlookers. Children can also be photographed but with more restrictions.

EDIT: want to ask, those cell phones provided by the department? Personal? Required passwords? Nothing like having pictures of your ass on some cop's personal phone.

They should be department cell phones.

I know this makes me a huge fucking moron for wanting cops to treat people (yes, even scumbag felons) like actual people, but whatever. Like I said: "Policy" for cops is all about protecting them, not civilians. It's a fallback so when someone does sue (and win) no one is held accountable but the taxpayer.

Wanting that doesn't make you a moron. Pretending to know their inner thoughts and exaggerating what happened does make you a moron though.

15 seconds after being told to get up, with no movement on his part, just a blank stare at the officer: he got a face-full of Shepherd. I don't see any difference between than and if the cop had instead kicked him in the face. The "threat" the suspect poses at that point is only implied, policy or not. And reacting to implied threats, which end up getting people killed, is probably why people don't really know what to do around cops.

First the use of the dog was unreasonable. However, had they used a taser or OC spray I would have been completely behind them because 15 seconds is plenty of time to comply with simple instructions. Basic, simple instructions. You and others need to stop pretending that complying with instructions such as hands up, stop, don't move, get on the ground is some complicated task that needs training for someone to reasonably be expected to follow.

[TheFeniX]

Fair enough. Though I have to ask because it seems you're implying that your "same reaction" is to fire on people you haven't identified. Isn't that a violation of one of the rules of a firearm safety? "Be sure of your target"?

Armed intruders in my home is the only assurance of my target I need. In the event they identify themselves as police, I'm not inclined to trust people saying yelling "police" because I have no reason to actually assume they're police. A no knock warrant essentially guarantees I'm dead. Obviously, other information will meter my response.

The chances of either armed intruders or police breaking into my house is infinitesimal and really was an off-topic quip I should have deleted: so I'll concede the issue.

I don't know man. 15 seconds is an awfully long time. I don't know if that qualifies for the point you're making here.

During a firefight? Yea, sure. It's can be an eternity. When you have multiple officers for backup and a dog ready to maul someone while they sit there unmoving: it really isn't. Time is hilariously subjective. As I'll go into later, during a robbery my buddy thought the whole thing lasted minutes ("Dude, you just buzzed me in, you didn't think it was weird I was taking so long to get there?") vs his recollection after he calmed down "it happened so fast."

Watch the video again. There was one officer photographing, one assisting with the photographing, and one using a flashlight (which he never pointed in the guys eyes you can tell this because the brightest point never hit his face). It seems like you're just projecting at this point.

You do know how flash-lights work right? 4:04.

Gunshots usually result in serious bleeding injuries so you'd be rightfully charged. This incident does not qualify. Your argument is basically "they aren't engaged in good PR!" which isn't necessarily invalid but don't compare you shooting someone to this. It's absurd.

Meanwhile, punctures wounds to the face: not dangerous. If cops aren't trained in basic medical aid, how would they even know?

How was his health in danger? Why are you continuing to project a cowboy attitude with the following of policy? I would agree if there were multiple officers taking pictures, officers exchanging high-fives, or making "that's cool" comments" but there was none of that and only one officer taking pictures in a clearly documentation type role.

You ever been bitten by a dog? Had one latch onto your face then try (literally) to rip your ass check off? I've been bit a few times, not mauled. So yes, dog bites are dangerous. And in the event of facial punctures (or any puncture wound) the incident should treated as possibly life-threatening until you've been evaluated by trained medical personnel. Unlike cuts and abrasions, the health effects of even short puncture wounds are not immediately apparent. Prompt medical attention is advised. It's a requirement at our job, so is documentation via written and/or photographic evidence. However, evidence gathering is secondary to the health of the injured individual as part of our policy.

You're joking right? This is absurd. Tell me, TheFenix. Do you know what a SANE nurse does? Uh oh! Hey watch out! There's a picture of a vagina on Wikipedia. You sound like a child or an evangelical Christian right now. There is a difference between documentation for scientific and court purposes versus for entertaining or self gratification.

Comparing a nurse, who can actually lose her job (and more) for privacy violations to cops with cell-phone cameras? And if said vagina's picture was taken without permission and posted online, that's actually a crime.

I'm no fucking prude. But I do have issue with, by your own admission, most likely medically-untrained police pulling a man's pants down to take pictures of his ass, humiliating a person in the process, when said process should be handled by actual medical personnel who have no vested interest in making sure only they get access to the evidence. Who also are primarily interested in the well-being of a suspect, not evidence gathering for the police. Why do the cops have the right to disrobe people when they have no interest in providing medical aid nor are they searching for weapons?

Really just a twist of the knife that the pictures were required because it's fucking legal to order an animal to attack someone who's pinned to the ground by multiple police.

First the use of the dog was unreasonable. However, had they used a taser or OC spray I would have been completely behind them because 15 seconds is plenty of time to comply with simple instructions. Basic, simple instructions. You and others need to stop pretending that complying with instructions such as hands up, stop, don't move, get on the ground is some complicated task that needs training for someone to reasonably be expected to follow.

My buddy was robbed at gun-point outside my apartment. From his recollection: "Give me your wallet" was said in an almost normal tone of voice. My buddy did not carry a wallet. He carried a money clip and left his identification in his truck.

All he could think to say was "I don't have a wallet." Because he didn't. The basic inference of "guy wants wallet > he wants my money > give money clip instead" wasn't there. He was then pistol-whipped (at the time, he thought the gun went off). He was ordered again to hand over his wallet. He just repeated dumbfounded "I don't have a wallet." This was because his entire world at that point (from his own explanation) was THERE'S A FUCKING GUN POINTED AT MY FACE. Extremely basic, simple shit becomes incredibly more difficult during high-stress situations, such as maybe having a gun pointed at you and a police dog ready to kill you at any moment.

The US military (and I'm sure others as well) spent money studying this effect and how to stop it from happening. Police either don't care about this or don't understand it. You call me out for "projecting" which could be true, but cops seem more than willing to project their own training and experience onto people who have no business having it. The simplest tasks become increasingly complicated when either your brain knows the wrong move will get you killed or it shuts down so completely you become oblivious to the danger of the situation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Armed intruders in my home is the only assurance of my target I need. In the event they identify themselves as police, I'm not inclined to trust people saying yelling "police" because I have no reason to actually assume they're police. A no knock warrant essentially guarantees I'm dead. Obviously, other information will meter my response.

The chances of either armed intruders or police breaking into my house is infinitesimal and really was an off-topic quip I should have deleted: so I'll concede the issue.

Ok

During a firefight? Yea, sure. It's can be an eternity. When you have multiple officers for backup and a dog ready to maul someone while they sit there unmoving: it really isn't. Time is hilariously subjective. As I'll go into later, during a robbery my buddy thought the whole thing lasted minutes ("Dude, you just buzzed me in, you didn't think it was weird I was taking so long to get there?") vs his recollection after he calmed down "it happened so fast."

We're just talking about the practice itself and not this particular incident since I've already agreed that it was excessive. After thinking about it I would go further and say that the officers order to "stand up and come to them" was unreasonable given that there was an aggressive dog right by him. I also have anecdotal stories to tell. I enjoy hearing them but we both probably agree that they don't set a standard or a reasonable expectation.

You do know how flash-lights work right? 4:04.

Yeah, the center of the light is on his chest/shoulder. They need light to photograph.

]Meanwhile, punctures wounds to the face: not dangerous. If cops aren't trained in basic medical aid, how would they even know?

Like you said it isn't rocket science. There was no gushing or spurting blood. He was bleeding but it was oozing out.

]You ever been bitten by a dog? Had one latch onto your face then try (literally) to rip your ass check off? I've been bit a few times, not mauled. So yes, dog bites are dangerous. And in the event of facial punctures (or any puncture wound) the incident should treated as possibly life-threatening until you've been evaluated by trained medical personnel. Unlike cuts and abrasions, the health effects of even short puncture wounds are not immediately apparent. Prompt medical attention is advised. It's a requirement at our job, so is documentation via written and/or photographic evidence. However, evidence gathering is secondary to the health of the injured individual as part of our policy.

Sorry, I disagree. I'm not saying the bite isn't serious because it is but there was no serious bleeding injury that required immediate attention. This is a fact.

Comparing a nurse, who can actually lose her job (and more) for privacy violations to cops with cell-phone cameras? And if said vagina's picture was taken without permission and posted online, that's actually a crime.

Cops can also lose their jobs for privacy violations.

I'm no fucking prude. But I do have issue with, by your own admission, most likely medically-untrained police pulling a man's pants down to take pictures of his ass, humiliating a person in the process, when said process should be handled by actual medical personnel who have no vested interest in making sure only they get access to the evidence.

You sound like a prude. You seem to not understand the difference between pictures taken for evidentiary reasons and pictures taken for self gratification and entertainment.

Who also are primarily interested in the well-being of a suspect, not evidence gathering for the police. Why do the cops have the right to disrobe people when they have no interest in providing medical aid nor are they searching for weapons?

Documenting evidence. A primary function of police.

Really just a twist of the knife that the pictures were required because it's fucking legal to order an animal to attack someone who's pinned to the ground by multiple police.

The fact that the attack is unreasonable makes the pictures even more important. They would be used as evidence in any criminal case against this K9 officer though I admit it is questionable whether that would happen and unacceptable if it doesn't happen. That K9 officer should be charged.

My buddy was robbed at gun-point outside my apartment. From his recollection: "Give me your wallet" was said in an almost normal tone of voice. My buddy did not carry a wallet. He carried a money clip and left his identification in his truck.

All he could think to say was "I don't have a wallet." Because he didn't. The basic inference of "guy wants wallet > he wants my money > give money clip instead" wasn't there. He was then pistol-whipped (at the time, he thought the gun went off). He was ordered again to hand over his wallet. He just repeated dumbfounded "I don't have a wallet." This was because his entire world at that point (from his own explanation) was THERE'S A FUCKING GUN POINTED AT MY FACE. Extremely basic, simple shit becomes incredibly more difficult during high-stress situations, such as maybe having a gun pointed at you and a police dog ready to kill you at any moment.

I could infer from your story that had the criminal asked "Give me your money" then your friend would comply immediately. This is why police don't say "Drop the Glock 23!" We say "drop the gun or weapons". We are suppose to keep it simple. Basic and simple. Now for my story.

This will be a quick version of the story. Two of my coworkers have just been shot. They've returned fire and killed the passenger/shooter of a car. The driver has just witnessed a short struggle and gunfight in which two officers have been hit, one seriously and the passenger he picked up has just been killed. I get there and order him out of the vehicle. I say "driver get out of the vehicle". He complies immediately. I then say "Get your hands up" again he complies immediately. Then I say "Get on the ground. Get on your stomach". Again compliance without hesitation.

Don't misunderstand. I think it would have been completely unreasonable for me to have used any force against him for simply failing to comply immediately. People do need time to process a situation and instructions but the public needs to also realize that hesitation isn't just a sign of stress induced freezing it is also a sign of the person going through the decision process to attack or flee.

[
The US military (and I'm sure others as well) spent money studying this effect and how to stop it from happening. Police either don't care about this or don't understand it. You call me out for "projecting" which could be true, but cops seem more than willing to project their own training and experience onto people who have no business having it. The simplest tasks become increasingly complicated when either your brain knows the wrong move will get you killed or it shuts down so completely you become oblivious to the danger of the situation.

We do understand it. I think it is you that doesn't fully understand it. You seem to think failing to follow instructions is just someone being stressed out. There are many examples of people "failing to follow instructions" and then attacking with deadly effect.

[TheFeniX]

]Meanwhile, punctures wounds to the face: not dangerous. If cops aren't trained in basic medical aid, how would they even know?

Like you said it isn't rocket science. There was no gushing or spurting blood. He was bleeding but it was oozing out.

I'm not qualified to make that call: a doctor is. At my job, I don't have the luxury of saying "walk it off pussy, you're fine." That has actual consequences for me: both legal and civil. I don't have the luxury of delaying medical care for anything other than safety reasons. At the point someone is injured enough that a hospital visit is required at all, the only thing more important than getting that person medical aid is my safety and the safety of others involved.

Do you just let blood ooze out of open wounds? Do you hang around your house bleeding on everything when you get cut? How long do you wait before applying alcohol or soap to wounds that can possibly get infected? I'm sure you just sit around in pain for as long as possible to let the whole thing sink in that you shouldn't have been stupid enough to injure yourself, right? The only reason they know it wasn't dangerous is because it turned out to not be dangerous. That doesn't make delaying medical care ok.

But this does give some insight into how "in retrospect" works for police and fucks everyone else: it's ok to say "that puncture wound doesn't look bad, and he didn't die so it's all ok" but cops are allowed to sic a dog on someone because there might be danger, even though in retrospect there was no danger. Did they find anything on or near the couch that this brutal killer was about to use on the heroic cops?

Once again, cops are more interested in their safety (including evidence gathering) than a suspect, even after the situation has been controlled.

You sound like a prude. You seem to not understand the difference between pictures taken for evidentiary reasons and pictures taken for self gratification and entertainment.

If being annoyed cops can brutalize someone then strip them for "Evidence Gathering" makes me a prude: I'll take it. Besides, without the actual video camera evidence, there'd be no real evidence anyways, or at least none the cops couldn't just make up themselves.

Don't misunderstand. I think it would have been completely unreasonable for me to have used any force against him for simply failing to comply immediately. People do need time to process a situation and instructions but the public needs to also realize that hesitation isn't just a sign of stress induced freezing it is also a sign of the person going through the decision process to attack or flee.

Yes, and in certain situations, responding to non-compliance with force is justified. An un-controlled situation shortly after a gun-fight being one of them. Not when the suspect is sitting still with his hands up in a room of a house you have surrounded.

So, what would cops do if not for their trained dogs, tasers, pepper-spray? Shoot the guy? Or maybe, GASP exhaust other methods before responding with force. I'd call it desescalation, but based on evidence gathered after-the-fact, there was nothing to deescalate.

We do understand it. I think it is you that doesn't fully understand it. You seem to think failing to follow instructions is just someone being stressed out. There are many examples of people "failing to follow instructions" and then attacking with deadly effect.

I said it can be. And cops can use time and deescalation to make better informed decisions. This type of policing has been recommended by other cops, namely, that there's a difference between resisting and non-compliance and both have violent and non-violent parts to them as well. If cops either don't care or don't understand that not every person is "ignoring" them to lie in wait to commit violence upon them, that's their problem. Actually, it's usually the suspect's problem as they end up injured or worse.

And if they do know this and still treat every situation like it's life and death and fall back on policy when people get stepped on: fine. Just don't be surprised when the populace hates and fears you.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm not qualified to make that call: a doctor is. At my job, I don't have the luxury of saying "walk it off pussy, you're fine." That has actual consequences for me: both legal and civil. I don't have the luxury of delaying medical care for anything other than safety reasons. At the point someone is injured enough that a hospital visit is required at all, the only thing more important than getting that person medical aid is my safety and the safety of others involved.

Stop exaggerating. He got medical attention that wasn't delayed and they weren't disrespectful to him I didn't hear anyone say "walk it off".

What part about police not being medical professionals do you not understand? At most cops may carry a tourniquet/chest sealer on their person and the reason for this is because medical response is very close.

Do you just let blood ooze out of open wounds? Do you hang around your house bleeding on everything when you get cut? How long do you wait before applying alcohol or soap to wounds that can possibly get infected? I'm sure you just sit around in pain for as long as possible to let the whole thing sink in that you shouldn't have been stupid enough to injure yourself, right? The only reason they know it wasn't dangerous is because it turned out to not be dangerous. That doesn't make delaying medical care ok.

By dangerous I'm going to assume you mean life threatening. In that case, they did know that because the injury was to his mouth. He wasn't bleeding profusely and his was breathing just fine. This is common sense. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

But this does give some insight into how "in retrospect" works for police and fucks everyone else: it's ok to say "that puncture wound doesn't look bad, and he didn't die so it's all ok" but cops are allowed to sic a dog on someone because there might be danger, even though in retrospect there was no danger. Did they find anything on or near the couch that this brutal killer was about to use on the heroic cops?

Sure, if you alter the narrative to fit your personal view then it does. Look at all your exaggerations and then your commentary on what they must obviously be thinking despite none of that being seen on video. You are literally inserting things.

You're incorrect about what you think police can do with a dog. Please refer to my earlier post where I spoke about the three prong test to determine if police used reasonable force.

Once again, cops are more interested in their safety (including evidence gathering) than a suspect, even after the situation has been controlled.

If being annoyed cops can brutalize someone then strip them for "Evidence Gathering" makes me a prude: I'll take it. Besides, without the actual video camera evidence, there'd be no real evidence anyways, or at least none the cops couldn't just make up themselves.

Being annoyed is one thing. Completely making up events and then claiming to know their inner thoughts isn't being annoyed. It's called being unreasonable and perhaps even dishonest. I also like how after I provide you with information of why they are doing those things you start off on another tangent.

quote]Yes, and in certain situations, responding to non-compliance with force is justified. An un-controlled situation shortly after a gun-fight being one of them. Not when the suspect is sitting still with his hands up in a room of a house you have surrounded.

Agreed.

So, what would cops do if not for their trained dogs, tasers, pepper-spray? Shoot the guy? Or maybe, GASP exhaust other methods before responding with force. I'd call it desescalation, but based on evidence gathered after-the-fact, there was nothing to deescalate.

It depends on the circumstances but yes de-escalation is an important step that should be considered when appropriate.

I said it can be. And cops can use time and deescalation to make better informed decisions. This type of policing has been recommended by other cops, namely, that there's a difference between resisting and non-compliance and both have violent and non-violent parts to them as well. If cops either don't care or don't understand that not every person is "ignoring" them to lie in wait to commit violence upon them, that's their problem. Actually, it's usually the suspect's problem as they end up injured or worse.

It's both really. Yes, police should realize that not every person wants to harm them. That's a toxic view point. People should also realize that police do have the authority to tell you what to do when you're the subject of a crime and since police don't have xray vision or telepathy then your safety is also your responsibility as well.

And if they do know this and still treat every situation like it's life and death and fall back on policy when people get stepped on: fine. Just don't be surprised when the populace hates and fears you.

Agreed.

[Dominus Atheos]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/1 ... estigators

Find out why 166 days after Tamir Rice's death, officers haven't been interviewed by investigators

Just yesterday, nearly six months after police shot and killed Tamir Rice, the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office announced that the agency was nearing the end of its investigation and that there were a few more people to interview.
Among those yet to be interviewed are Cleveland Police officers Timothy Loehmann, who fired the fatal shot that killed Tamir, and his partner, Frank Garmback, who drove the car right up to Tamir this Nov. 22. How in the world, one wonders, could these officers have months and months and months to formulate their stories before speaking to investigators?

It's because of Garrity Rights. Heard of them? Most people haven't. Follow below the fold for an explanation.

Garrity Rights protect public employees from being compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. This protection stems from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that the government cannot compel a person to be a witness against him/herself….
In 1961, the New Jersey attorney general began investigating allegations that traffic tickets were being “fixed” in the townships of Bellmawr and Barrington. The investigation focused on Bellmawr police chief Edward Garrity and five other employees. When questioned, each was warned that anything they said might be used against them in a criminal proceeding, and that they could refuse to answer questions in order to avoid self-incrimination. However, they were also told that if they refused to answer, they would be terminated. Rather than lose their jobs, they answered the investigators’ questions. Their statements were then used in their prosecutions – over their objections – and they were convicted.

The U.S. Supreme Court then ruled in 1967’s Garrity v. New Jersey that the employees’ statements, made under threat of termination, were compelled by the state in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision asserted that “the option to lose their means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak or to remain silent.” Therefore, because the employees’ statements were compelled, it was unconstitutional to use the statements in a prosecution. Their convictions were overturned.

In short, Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, by law, don't have to say a word to investigators, and anything they may have said to the Cleveland Police Department before the case was transferred to the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office in January is inadmissible in court.
Contacted via email, spokespersons for both the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office and the Cleveland Prosecutor's Office each confirmed that they had not yet interviewed or attempted to interview either Loehmann or Garmback. Garrity protections were cited by both offices.

Joe Frolik, director of communications for the Cleveland Prosecutor's Office, when asked about whether that agency had or will ever interview the officers, said:

We have not interviewed the police officers. Here’s how it works:

The Sheriff’s Department is leading the investigation, working with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. When they are done, and Sheriff Pinkney said today that most of their work is complete, the file will be turned over to our office. We will review. We may ask for additional investigative work. We may retain outside experts, if we deem necessary.

Then we will present all of the evidence to the Grand Jury. If they want, the grand jurors can ask to hear from additional witnesses or experts. When all that’s done, we will discuss potential charges and make a recommendation. But the final decision on charging rests with the citizens on the Grand Jury.

Philip Angelo, a spokesperson for the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office, explained:

To be clear, the Prosecutor's Office has done nothing with this case from an investigatory sense. Their only role to this point was to look at the initial case Cleveland compiled and ensure that it was purged/cleansed of any privileged information before our deputies began their investigation. Once we complete our investigation (no more than 30 days), they will then look at all of the evidence we have gathered and determine whether charges have been filed.

As for the primary officers (Loehmann/Gorbach [sic]), Cleveland interviewed them about the incident immediately after it happened. However, because of Garrity protections (essentially "protects" officers from having their immediate remarks held against them in the future http://www.garrityrights.org/...), those interviews/statements cannot be used in our investigation.

The family of Tamir Rice has been waiting for answers for nearly six months. While it’s understandable that police officers have the constitutional right to not incriminate themselves, the family fully and completely deserves to hear the police perspective on why this happened. Officers, in performing their duties, have rights and privileges that everyday citizens do not have. They should also be required to be fully transparent in how they use/abuse those same rights and privileges.

I hope for a world where our justice system treats poor black people the same way they treat cops, and cops the same way they treat poor black people.

[Dominus Atheos]

The ongoing criminalization of poverty

A series of reports over the last few weeks have shed more light on the increasingly predatory enforcement of misdemeanors across the country, and how this trend disproportionately hurts the poor. The first report comes from an area familiar to readers of The Watch — St. Louis County, Missouri. It was published by the Police Executive Research Forum. Among the key findings:

Policing is extremely fragmented: St. Louis County contains a patchwork of police departments, many of which have jurisdiction over very small areas. About one-third of the municipalities in the County that have a police department occupy less than one square mile. This has led to confusion and distrust among residents, who often feel targeted and harassed by police officers and the municipal court system.

Many police departments have inappropriate goals: In many municipalities, policing priorities are driven not by the public safety needs of the community, but rather by the goal of generating large portions of the operating revenue for the local government. This is a grossly inappropriate mission for the police, often carried out at the direction of local elected officials.

The “muni shuffle” is unprofessional: Police standards, training, pay, and professionalism vary dramatically throughout the region. Of particular concern is the so-called “muni shuffle,” in which police officers who are fired or allowed to resign because of disciplinary or performance issues in one department are quickly hired by another department, because it can be less expensive to hire an experienced (albeit compromised) officer than to recruit and train a new officer.

These criticisms have now been reiterated in several forums, by several different organizations. Perhaps most damning, all of this attention on petty offenses has distracted the area’s police departments from fighting crime. Despite the saturation of police departments, the report found elevated crime rates in the area, and that violent and property crime cost about $1,187 per resident. In other words, the people who live in St. Louis County aren’t being protected by the police, the police are preying on them. And they’re doing at the instruction of these local governments.

Up next, a well-reported three-part series on policing and the poor by the CBS affiliated in Miami. The report focuses on a city “crime suppression team” that’s supposed to improve the quality of life in poor areas. This excerpt is from part three.

During its five-month investigation into the Miami-Dade Police Department’s Crime Suppression Team, CBS4 News reviewed every arrest the officers from the South District Station made in 2014.

The results: CBS4 News found a unit whose actions resulted in the arrests of hundreds of individuals – mostly young black males – for petty offenses. Even more troubling, the arrests failed to result in a reduction in crime in the South District. In fact, crime went up in most of the major categories, according to records obtained by CBS4 News.

CBS4 News also found that most of the cases made by the Crime Suppression Team fell apart once they made it to court. Overall, the Crime Suppression Team had a conviction rate of just eleven percent.

And of the 245 individuals arrested for marijuana – only two ended up being convicted. In addition to those two convictions, 80 individuals – or one third of those arrested – accepted what is known as a “withhold of adjudication.”

“Withhold of adjudication is something that exists only in Florida and it’s kind of a legal fiction,” said Miami-Dade County Public Defender Carlos Martinez. “It’s a conviction, a judge has made a finding of guilt, but we are going to say you are not really a convicted person, but in fact you are. Immigration does not look at the difference between a withhold or no withhold, they look at it as a conviction. And most employers that I’ve talked to about these issues, and they see withhold, to them it looks like a conviction. They don’t see the difference.”

Most of the people appearing in court don’t realize this because they are not represented by an attorney, Martinez said. “Seventy percent of the people in Dade County go to court without an attorney.”

In Florida, if prosecutors are not requesting jail time for a crime, the person charged doesn’t have the right to have a public defender appointed to represent them.

So once again we have police in predominantly poor, predominantly black communities making “broken windows” and “quality of life” arrests for petty offenses. This is saddling large percentages of these communities with burdensome fines and debilitating arrest records, it’s poisoning the relationship between the police agencies and the communities they’re supposed to be serving and it’s all doing little to nothing to make these communities any safer. This particular anecdote is just chilling:

On August 27th, a group of plain clothes Miami-Dade police officers pulled onto a dead-end street in South Dade and arrested three young black men after finding a single marijuana cigarette on the ground near where the trio was standing.

Two of the men were released on the spot after being given notices to appear in court. The third person, however, was placed in handcuffs and loaded into one of the unmarked cars.

Why did the officers take 21-year-old Tannie Burke? According to Burke, the officers were angry because Burke’s stepfather, Marvin Armstrong, was videotaping the arrest as well as berating the officers and accusing them of racial profiling.

Burke claims instead of taking him to jail or to the South District police station, the officers took Burke for a ride, during which they repeatedly complained about his stepfather’s actions.

“They said, `your step father got a lot of mouth. You know we don’t like that,’” Burke recalled.

After twenty minutes, Burke said they dropped him off on the edge of some darkened farmland miles from his house.

“They put me off somewhere in Goulds,” Burke recounted. “There were no street lights and no houses. It was just dark.”

Burke’s allegations would be troubling by themselves. They become startling, however when one detail is added: Burke is legally blind.

It’s the sort of sadism you get when armed, untouchable public officials are taught to dehumanize the people they serve.

This week, the National Association of Public Defenders issued a 10-page statement calling for the reform of these practices, including treating fines as civil cases, not criminal cases; providing legal representation to indigent defendants in municipal cases; factoring in a defendant’s income and financial situation before treating nonpayment of a fine as a crime; and ending the monetary bond.

There is some good news on this issue — or at least some movement. Yesterday, the Senate held a hearing titled, “Protecting the Constitutional Right to Counsel for Indigents Charged with Misdemeanors.” More surprising: The hearing was called by conservative Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). As Andrew Cohen writes at The Marshall Project, much of the movement on this issue is, in fact, coming from the right. And that’s particularly encouraging.

The three witnesses selected by committee Republicans are expected to testify in favor of reform. The chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, Mark Cady, for example, just last month issued a brave and important right-to-counsel ruling. Another Republican witness, Bob Boruchowitz, is a former public defender who produced a seminal report warning about the problem in 2009. These men (and the other witnesses) aren’t coming to Washington to tell the Senate that the status quo is working or acceptable.

It certainly isn’t acceptable to a growing number of conservatives beyond Washington, who have begun to loudly sound the call for reform in misdemeanor cases, pitching it to their own constituents as a fundamental matter of governance that dovetails with the broader conservative pushback against “overcriminalization.” Last fall, for example, Koch Industries partnered with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to help train public defenders. The money, Charles Koch said at the time, was designed “to make the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to counsel a reality for all Americans…”

That’s a theme echoed by Tim Lynch, the Cato Institute’s criminal justice director, who said via email: “If more and more Americans are vulnerable to criminal prosecution, and they are, it makes sense to take steps to help the most vulnerable, the indigent.”

Even prosecutors seem to understand that something dramatic has to change in these misdemeanor courts. “It’s the perfect example of overcriminalization,” David LaBahn, president of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, told me Tuesday. “Why does everything have to be a crime?” LaBahn says there is much work to be done to reform “all parts of the system,” including additional resources for prosecutors and judges. Who has the worst deal of all in misdemeanor cases? LaBahn says it’s the working poor who make just enough money not to be indigent.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Democrats sought to avoid being portrayed as “soft on crime” by trying to outflank the GOP in punitiveness. It was a race to mass incarceration. Imagine if in the 2010s we see the same sort of competition, but in reverse, where defensive Republicans seeking to avoid being labeled indifferent to the poor try to outflank the Democrats by moving to end the criminalization of poverty.

One can dream.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... f-poverty/

[Dominus Atheos]

Former Prison Counselor Recounts The Horrors The Mentally Ill Endure

As prisons and jails increasingly house mentally ill individuals who might in past eras have gone to a psychiatric institution, these inmates have become disproportionate targets of abuse. This mistreatment ranges from punitive chemical sprays and stun guns, to being strapped into chairs or beds for days, to severe beatings or death, according to a Human Rights Watch report released Tuesday.

Corrections officials “break their jaws, noses, ribs; or leave them with lacerations, second degree burns, deep bruises, and damaged internal organs,” the report explains. “The violence can traumatize already vulnerable men and women, aggravating their symptoms and making future mental health treatment more difficult. In some cases, including several documented in this report, the use of force has caused or contributed to prisoners’ deaths.”

Amidst this violence, there are individuals whose job it is to treat these inmates, often in conditions that are inherently in tension with their illness. George Mallinckrodt was one of those people. He worked as a mental health counselor at the psychiatric ward in Florida where Darren Rainey was later scalded to death in a 160-degree shower.

Mallinckrodt was not a first-hand witness to any incidents like Rainey’s, although he later devoted so much time to investigating the incident that he published a book on the topic. Rather, he said, he witnessed daily abuse of a population segregated precisely because of their severe mental illness.

Particularly after his experience as an advocate in Florida, where stories of inmates who were gassed to death and scalded to death were revealed only after state prison inspectors came forward to blow the whistle on rampant suppression of abuse, Mallinckrodt suspects that what the public knows may be just a small fraction of what’s really going on behind bars.

“In terms of magnitude, [prison abuse] makes police brutality look like a drop in the bucket,” Mallinckrodt told ThinkProgress. “There aren’t people in jails with cell phones taking footage of abuse. That’s the problem. It’s happening in secret. And we hear dribs and drabs of stories but that only scratches the surface really.”

Mallinckrodt, one of the few people to come forward publicly about his experiences inside Florida prisons, talked to ThinkProgress about what was like to work in a unit for inmates with severe mental diagnoses such as paranoid schizophrenia, in an environment that exacerbated their condition.

“What other job can you possibly imagine where people on your caseload are beaten?” Mallinkcrodt said, speaking to ThinkProgress from his Miami Beach home. “It was just was so alien to me and something I had to navigate pretty much on my own because the [Department of Corrections] and Corizon Health offer no training whatsoever in recognizing abuse. And so literally for years, I was seeing more minor forms of abuse but just writing it off as another bad day in prison.”

Evidence of this abuse included bruises and scars, reports of beatings from other staff members who were afraid to report incidents. Evidence that inmates were not being fed. Bogus disciplinary reports that meant the removal of basic inmate privileges. And most prominently, the taunting of inmates.

“You know we had a sergeant,” Mallinkcrodt said. “Every morning he went to one side of the unit where there was a man who was severely mentally ill. He would get him riled up and that guy would bang his head on the door or yell out for hours. I mean the mentally ill have a stamina you would not believe. I mean you and I. We could fake mental illness for about 15 minutes and then we’d just get tired.”

The guard would then go to the other side of the unit and to the “other guy he could get riled up and that guy would go off for hours. And that’s inmate abuse. We didn’t need the guards to make people more crazy.” What’s more, Mallinkcrodt said, the guards were sabotaging the therapeutic work he was trying to do with these inmates. He characterized some of them as “sadistic sociopaths.”

Mallinckrodt recounted one story involving an inmate who had been making some of the most significant progress during therapy sessions. Mallinckrodt entered this inmate’s unit one day to find him with an open gash on his head, blood on the floor and on the window. The inmate told him two “linebacker-sized guards” smashed him into the concrete floor. In the days and weeks after the incident, the inmate’s progress reversed; he “decompensated.” And one day, he attacked Mallinckrodt.

“So these guards. … They don’t realize by escalating violence it’s just gonna create more violence,” Mallinckrodt said. “So they made it unsafe for themselves. They made it unsafe for staffers. And then the abuse continues.”

Mallinckrodt also had his own experiences with the silencing of abuse. A fellow staff member told him about a brutal beating with an eyewitness that the staff member was afraid to report. Mallickrodt attempted to report it for her, pointing out during a staff meeting that the incident had not been addressed. “There was dead silence,” Mallinckrodt said. “No one wanted to talk about it. … Finally the site manager for Corizon who was a psychologist looked over at me and said, well Mr. Mallinckrodt if you’re having concerns you should put it in writing.” Mallinckrodt deemed the response disingenuous and “pathetic.”

Mallinckrodt started becoming known as a go-to person to report abuse. And the more he became the receptacle for stories of abuse that were being ignored by prison officials, the more Mallinckrodt’s anxiety became unsustainable. He couldn’t lift his hand without it shaking. He experienced low-grade nausea. “My response was to take longer and longer lunches. I figured if I could just get out for lunch to decompress, I could just survive another day.” Until the day when he came back from a long lunch and he was fired. “I felt this amazing relief lifted from me,” he said.

In days since Mallinckrodt left, a former coworker called him to tell him about Darren Rainey’s death, and he became one of the most vocal advocates for accountability at Florida’s Department of Corrections. Despite widespread recognition of this epidemic in Florida, and a bipartisan bill in the state legislature to reform it, the bill died in the Senate last month. Gov. Rick Scott (R) did issue an executive order this week to institute some reforms in its place, but the executive order relies on the very same Department of Corrections to perform the oversight it has thus far been accused of shirking.

Mallinckrodt doesn’t think the executive order goes nearly far enough, and he calls for many of the same reforms as Human Rights Watch in their new report: establishing use of force policies and training staff on those policies, testing for incoming staff to screen out individuals with sociopathic tendencies, dramatically improved oversight and surveillance cameras, and most fundamentally, policies that improve inmates’ condition rather than making it worse. This includes keeping inmates out of solitary confinement, where inmates in Mallinckrodt’s unit spent most of their time.

But underlying the debate is another larger question, at a time when, as Human Rights Watch puts it, “It is well known that US prisons and jails have taken on the role of mental health facilities”: Should these mentally ill inmates be there in the first place?

“That’s the other constant discussion I had with my coworkers,” Mallinckrodt said. “We’d get somebody in who was just severely mentally ill. And our constant refrain was just how did they find this guy fit for trial? He should be in a mental institution not prison. And that still confounds me.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 ... ve-prison/

[Dominus Atheos]

Arbitrator reinstated Cleveland police officer fired, convicted for stabbing felon boyfriend

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A Cleveland police officer who stabbed a sexual predator she dated and allowed to live in a home with her children was given her job back despite the city's attempt to fire her.

Mayor Frank Jackson on Friday said the arbitration process can present major roadblocks in attempts to reform the city's police department which came under scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice

Some of the nearly 20 arbitration documents obtained by Northeast Ohio Media Group reveal that punishments doled out by the department are sometimes overturned.

An arbitrator allowed patrol officer Shani Hannah to return to the police force in September 2014 after she was fired following a criminal conviction stemming from her stabbing her boyfriend and trying to take her own life.

The 11-year veteran was drunk in the March 2012 incident where she grabbed her boyfriend by the throat, hit him in the face and stabbed his legs and hands. Hannah fled the scene and sent text messages to her boyfriend and children that she was going to kill herself.

Police found her parked on a dead-end street with a cord tied around her neck. An officer smashed a car window and reached in to stop her from taking her own life. Hannah later told police that the suicide attempt and text messages were efforts to keep her out of jail.

Prosecutors charged Hannah with felonious assault. She pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor assault charge. A felony conviction would have barred her from carrying a firearm and automatically kept her off the force.

A judge sentenced Hannah to a suspended 6 months in jail, a year of probation, 25 hours of community service, drug testing and anger management. Then-Cleveland Safety Director Martin Flask wrote in a discharge letter that Hannah was fired because "the use of a weapon to inflict harm on another is inexcusable and unacceptable conduct by an officer."

While determining whether to uphold the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association's call for Hannah's reinstatement and back pay, the arbitrator questioned Hannah's ability to make sound judgments.

He cited an incident in which Hannah drove drunk with her children in the car and later screamed suicide threats at home, a breakdown Hannah attributed to the recent death of her grandmother, who raised her.

The arbitrator also brought up Hannah's decision to maintain a years-long relationship with her live-in boyfriend, a registered sexual predator with a hefty rap sheet.

The boyfriend, Darnell Richardson, has convictions that include drug possession, drug trafficking, sexual battery, attempted kidnaping, gross sexual imposition, abduction, forgery and attempted robbery. At one time he was forced to wear an ankle bracelet while on parole.

Hannah claimed she didn't know about Richardson's criminal history or that he was on parole when they met. She said she was made aware of Richardson's past when he used it against her and threatened to report their relationship to the city.

Hannah stayed with Richardson despite his physical and emotional abuse, she said.

The union argued Hannah should be reinstated based in part on lesser punishments received by officers who committed crimes the union deemed similar. They presented four cases in which off-duty officers were charged with domestic violence but kept their jobs after pleading guilty to lesser charges.

The arbitrator sustained part of the union's grievance, reinstating Hannah but denying the request for back pay. He conceded Hannah was guilty of egregious behavior, but determined her punishment was inconsistent with penalties given to other officers who committed similar crimes.

Cleveland police spokesman Sgt. Ali Pillow said Friday that Hannah no longer works with the department. Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland police union, was not immediately available for comment.

So when a police officer stabs someone 6 times, they get probation and their job back on the off chance they get fired. (the article says other officers convicted of similar crimes didn't get fired)

If you or I stabbed someone 6 times, we would be charged with attempted murder, and get several years in prison.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/body-ca ... n-go-free/

Body cam video catches Barstow cops slamming black pregnant woman to ground, letting white woman go free
David Edwards DAVID EDWARDS
27 MAY 2015 AT 15:13 ET

Officials with the city of Barstow, California insisted this week that officers had acted properly when they used force to arrest a pregnant woman who refused to show them her identification, even though the charges were later dismissed.

In police body camera video obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal), an officer is responding to an apparent traffic dispute between Charlena Michelle Cooks, who is 8 months pregnant and black, and an unidentified white woman.

The officer first talks to the white woman, who accuses Cooks of acting “all crazy.”

“I don’t see a crime that has been committed,” the officer admits after examining the woman’s car. After promising the woman a police report, the officer heads over to talk to Cooks.

Cooks explains that the argument occurred because the woman disagreed with the way she was driving in the parking lot. Cooks also said that the woman frightened her daughter, who was in second grade.

“She called the police for whatever reason, I don’t know,” Cooks says. “Should I feel threatened by her because she’s white? Because she’s white and she’s making threats to me?”

At that point the officer asks for Cooks’ name, but she insists that she does not have to tell him.

“I actually do have the right to ask you for your name,” the officer replies.

“Let me make sure,” Cooks says as she makes a phone call to someone.

The officer says he will give Cooks two minutes to verify his right to ask for her identification. But less than 20 seconds later, the officer and a colleague are performing a painful wristlock takedown on Cooks. The pregnant woman screams as she is forced belly first into the ground.

“Why are you resisting?” the officer demands.

“Please! I’m pregnant!” Cooks exclaims. “Please, stop this!”

ACLU SoCal staff attorney Adrienna Wong pointed out that Cooks had a right to refuse to show her ID.

“It would be a wrongful arrest, but it would be an arrest,” she noted. “Even if an officer is conducting an investigation, in California, unlike some other states, he can’t just require a person to provide ID for no reason.”

“Officers in California should not be using the obstruction law, Penal Code 148, to arrest someone for failing to provide ID, when they can’t find any other reason to arrest them,” Wong added.

ACLU SoCal staff attorney Jessica Price observed that Cooks, who is black, was handled very differently than the white woman.

“Imagine getting wrestled to the ground and handcuffed in front of your child’s elementary school,” Price remarked. “Imagine interacting with other parents afterwards. Imagine what kids who saw the incident tell your child. And if you think the whole incident happened because of your race, how does that impact your view of police?”

In a separate settlement with ACLU SoCal, the City of Barstow agreed to provide training to its officers after two brothers were arrested for refusing to provide identification. Charges against the brothers were dropped and the city agreed to pay $30,000 in damages.

The charges of resisting arrest against Cooks were also dropped, but the city insisted that it acted properly in that case.

“The Barstow Police Department continues to be proactive in training its officers to assess and handle interactions with emotionally charged individuals while conducting an investigation, for the protection of everyone involved,” the city said in a statement.

“This incident was in no way racially motivated, as implied by the ACLU,” the statement said. “Barstow is a racially diverse community, as is our Police Department, and we affirm our Police Department’s commitment to protect and serve all of our residents.”

To make matters worse, Cooks was banned from her daughter’s school until the charges were dismissed. She said that she has not decided whether or not she wants to sue the city. But ultimately, her goal is to move out of Barstow as soon as possible.

“I’m still trying to process everything and get in a good state of mind,” she told the Desert Dispatch. “I’m in a very fearful state of mind. Barstow is so small and I used to be comfortable living here. Not anymore. I really felt like after all that happened I had some of my everyday freedoms taken from me.”

“I don’t think I’ve ever been that terrified in my life,” Cooks continued. “I never saw that coming. I told him I was pregnant so he could proceed with caution. That didn’t happen and the first thing I thought was I didn’t want to fall to the ground. I felt the pressure on my stomach from falling and I was calling for help. But those guys are supposed to help me. But who is supposed to help me when they are attacking me?”

Cooks gave birth to a daughter earlier this year, but the violent January arrest still haunts her.

“She was a full-term baby born on March 30,” she said. “We don’t exactly know if anything really happened to her during the incident so I’m just watching her development closely.”

Watch the video of Cooks arrest below, record January 26, 2015.

Cop goes to white woman who makes complaint against a black woman. Cop admits he cannot see a crime committed. Cop does not ask for her name.

Cop approaches black woman. Asks for her name. She refuses (as its within her right). They arrest her. Claims resisting arrest. City defends cops.

[Dominus Atheos]

Cops Arrest Subway Riders For "Manspreading"

The Police Reform Organizing Project's new "That's How They Get You" report (PDF) features a roundup of stories compiled from long hours spent monitoring arraignment and summons courts. Among the 117 vignettes, which PROP director Robert Gangi said were usually based on court testimony—and occasionally on conversations with defendants and lawyers, or reviewing lawsuits or news reports—this anecdote appears:

On a recent visit to the arraignment part in Brooklyn’s criminal court, PROP volunteers observed that police officers had arrested two Latino men on the charge of "man spreading" on the subway, presumably because they were taking up more than one seat and therefore inconveniencing other riders. Before issuing an [adjournment contemplating dismissal] for both men, the judge expressed her skepticism about the charge because of the time of the arrests: "12:11AM, I can't believe there were many people on the subway".

The two men had outstanding warrants for other Broken Windows charges, namely, being in a park after closing and public urination, and their arrests brought them out of the pool of 1.2 million New York fugitives who missed court dates or failed to pay fines for low-level offenses. The MTA's rules of conduct only prohibit taking up more than one seat when it interferes with the functioning of the train or the "comfort of other passengers."

Nevertheless, the judge, instead of dismissing the midnight manspreading charge outright, issued what's known as an ACD, a decision meaning all the charges will be thrown out if the defendant doesn't get arrested for a certain amount of time.

Last summer, the activist group started sitting in the gallery of various courts for several hours every week or two, but Gangi said it was the first time its members had ever heard anyone involved in the system say "manspreading" out loud.

Manspreading arrests are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to numbers-driven policing in the subway system, which often takes place in the middle of the night, according to Gangi. Underground is where Broken Windows champion and police commissioner Bill Bratton got his start at the NYPD as transit chief, and fare evasion consistently ranks among the most common types of misdemeanor arrests. But the maddening tickets and criminal charges recounted in the PROP report come in many shapes and sizes, for behavior like putting a foot on a subway seat or walking between cars (always illegal, whether or not you're bothering anybody). Gangi said that he has no concrete proof that quotas exist, but that it's the only explanation for the volume of questionable cases he sees coming through court.

"My very strong sense, and I think other people see it the same way, is that it’s quota-driven," he said. "These kinds of tickets or arrests are low-lying fruit, they’re easy pickings."

The report notes that 89 percent of cases the group tracked ended with no further jail time. One man claimed an officer apologized to him after ticketing him for walking between subway cars, saying, “I’m sorry, but it’s the 26th of the month and I have to make my quota.” Evidence of rush hour douchebaggery is abundant in our archives, but in tracking hundreds of cases, Gangi claimed he never saw subway-etiquette-based charges leveled against someone actually blocking a door, say, or taking up a seat someone wanted.

"We've never seen someone ticketed or arrested because they were actually inconveniencing somebody," he said.

Here is a sampling of the subway horror stories, not to be confused with these, compiled by another activist group looking for the state to fund the MTA:

On a Saturday night in spring, a Legal Aid lawyer in the Manhattan arraignment part represented four defendants in a row who had been arrested for having a foot up on a subway seat. One case stood out for the attorney: a 22 year old African-American man, a college student with a part-time job, who had an appropriate ID and no criminal record, had to spend over 24 hours in jail. A police officer arrested him when the train was four stops away from his house.

A young African-American woman, a student at LaGuardia College, had three punitive interactions with NYPD officers in a year's time: the first was a summons for swiping her school MetroCard on Memorial Day; next was another summons, this time for having her foot on a subway seat; in the third encounter, the officer charged her with being in a park after dusk and cuffed and arrested her because she hadn't shown up in court for her two summonses. Her failure to appear had resulted in her becoming one of the more than one million fugitives from justice who live in NYC, an unfortunate status achieved by not keeping a court date to clear up a ticket for a minor infraction. "I'm a criminal now," she said in a bewildered tone, "even though my friends call me such a good girl."

At 2:30 in the morning at the Canal Street station in downtown Manhattan, police officers arrested three New Yorkers at the same time: a young white woman charged with foot on a subway seat — although there were no other passengers in the car; and two young African- American men, ages 18 and 19, charged with walking between subway cars. The police locked up the woman and one of the teenagers for about 5 hours in a holding cell in the subway and released them with a DAT. The police held the other teenager overnight because they found an outstanding warrant on his record. As the woman was leaving the lock-up, an officer told her not to worry because the court would dismiss the charge against her.

On a monitoring visit to the arraignment part in Manhattan's criminal court, a public defender motioned that she wanted to speak with us during a break in the proceedings. "My first 9 cases were all unlawful solicitation," she said, her head shaking in dismay. Unlawful solicitation means a person asks someone to swipe them onto the subway and is considered a punishable infraction even if the individual asked is willing to do so. We asked her about the race of the people charged. "All black," she replied.

Suspecting her of fare-beating at a Harlem subway station, police officers threw a woman down, pressed her face to the ground, and kicked her in the ribs. She actually had just swiped herself through the turnstile and opened the gate to guide her baby in a stroller onto the station platform. Her older children, 7 and 14 years old, witnessed the beating. “I felt like I was raped in front of my children,” she said, adding that she had moved to Newark to escape the NYPD. The charges against her were dismissed and, through a lawsuit, she is seeking damages against the city.

The list goes on. Ninety-four percent of the 850 defendants observed by PROP were people of color, according to the report. Plenty more of the accounts take place above ground.

[Dominus Atheos]

Supreme Court Hands Victory To Police Who Use Deadly Force

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt at least a partial blow to police reform advocates Monday, in a ruling that held police officers could not be sued after all for firing gunshots at a severely mentally disabled woman who threatened violence.

The decision is a loss for plaintiff Teresa Sheehan, who survived the deadly police force, and had won the right to sue in the lower courts. Studies in several cities have found that about half of police shooting victims are mentally ill, and that the mentally ill are disproportionate victims of excessive police force. Sheehan, like many of disabled police shooting victims, was shot in what started as a call to police for help.

But Monday’s Supreme Court ruling also avoided what could have been a much worse outcome for disability advocates. The justices punted on what was perhaps the most significant question before the U.S. Supreme Court — how federal disabilities protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to this sort of police conduct. Had the justices ruled on that question, advocates warned, the conservative Roberts Court could have made disabilities protections substantially weaker than they are now. “While San Francisco may intend to craft arguments that it believes will limit the damage to individuals’ rights under the ADA, it will have little control over what the Supreme Court does,” disability groups wrote in a letter to San Francisco, urging the city to drop its appeal.

San Francisco didn’t drop its appeal, but the justices heeded its call for a limited ruling, and didn’t rule at all on the question of whether those with disabilities should be treated differently by the police.

Instead, the justices’ ruling made clearer than ever that under current law, police officers could not have been expected to consider Sheehan’s mental illness when they entered her room at a group home twice, and responded to her violent threats by shooting her six times. “The Fourth Amendment standard is reasonableness, and it is reasonable for police to move quickly if delay ‘would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.’,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six-justice majority, noting that they could not weigh in on the relevance of Sheehan’s disability.
The decision to grant police immunity is not particularly surprising. It’s one in a line of Supreme Court rulings that has protected officer immunity from lawsuits. But it takes on new significance as national attention turns to police brutality.

“When the Supreme Court says an officer is immune from suit for damages because the state of the law was unclear at the time, that doesn’t get a lot of press, but that’s the kind of decision that makes it really hard to do anything about the Tamir Rice situation,” said University of Michigan law professor Samuel Bagenstos referencing the 12-year-old who was shot dead by police six months ago in Cleveland, Ohio. “It keeps the courts from imposing the appropriate incentives on police departments to stop use of excessive force.”

The incident involving Sheehan started when social worker Heath Hodge believed Sheehan’s schizophrenia had deteriorated to “gravely disabled” after Sheehan stopped taking her medication, and called police for help transporting her to a mental health facility for involuntary commitment and treatment.
When police showed up at the San Francisco group home where Sheehan lived without a warrant, Sheehan “reacted violently,” wielding a knife and telling the officers she would kill them. In response, officers safely retreated to a hallway. “The officers called for backup,” the Ninth Circuit decision explained, “but rather than waiting for backup or taking other actions to maintain the status quo or de-escalate the situation, the officers drew their weapons and forced their way back into Sheehan’s room, presumably to disarm, subdue and arrest her, and to prevent her escape (although there do not appear to have been any means of escape available). Sheehan once again threatened the officers with a knife, causing the officers to shoot Sheehan five or six times.”

Sheehan argued that officers failed to reasonably accommodate her disability by “forcing their way back into her room without taking her mental illness into account and without employing tactics that would have been likely to resolve the situation without injury to herself or others.”

And expert witness Lou Reiter provided testimony that officers, in fact, did not follow that protocol at all. He said officers are trained not to agitate or excite individuals who are mentally ill, to “respect the person’s comfort zone, use nonthreatening communications and to employ the passage of time to their advantage.” He also cited materials used by the San Francisco Police Department that advise officers to request backup, to calm the situation, to communicate, to move slowly, to assume a quiet, nonthreatening manner, to take time to assess the situation and to “give the person time to calm down.”

“Reiter deemed the officers’ second entry into Sheehan’s home tactically unreasonable under those policies,” the lower court noted, finding that the officers should have awaited back-up and considered seeking a warrant.

In Monday’s opinion, the justices noted that whether the officers followed training protocol is not a factor in granting police officers what is known as “qualified immunity,” the broad federal protection that shields the police and other government entities from civil rights lawsuits.
“Considering the specific situation confronting Reynolds and Holder, they had sufficient reason to believe that their conduct was justified,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

In a concurring opinion, Justices Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan questioned whether the Supreme Court should have decided this case at all if they weren’t going to rule in the question of whether the disabled were entitled to special protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
It’s a common scenario for police interactions with the mentally ill to escalate from what starts as a call for help. Part of the problem is that the typical strategies used by officers when faced with suspects they perceive as violent can have an adverse impact on those with mental illness. Particularly in instances when police know before they arrive on the scene that a patient is suffering from mental illness — in fact is in need of police help precisely because of their mental illness — some police departments deploy special mental health crisis teams.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 ... lice-shot/

[Dominus Atheos]

An NBA Player Is Missing the Playoffs Because the NYPD Broke His Leg—Why the Sports-Media Silence?

The NBA Finals may be determined by an act of police violence. This is an incendiary fact, yet a curious media silence surrounds the saga of injured Atlanta Hawks guard Thabo Sefolosha. The nine-year pro has been absent from the playoffs after a group of New York Police Department officers broke his leg in April following a late-night confrontation outside a Chelsea nightclub. The police accounts about what took place conflict dramatically, with video that emerged of a group of officers surrounding Sefolosha, with one brandishing a nightstick. Sefolosha, with assistance from the National Basketball Players Association, is planning a lawsuit against the City of New York. How this is not a continual firestorm is, frankly, bewildering. Given that there is a national movement confronting racialized police violence, and given that last winter saw the most prominent players in the NBA—LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Derrick Rose, even Kobe Bryant—speaking out in solidarity with this movement, it seems like a story too magnetic to ignore. It’s also unprecedented. My first editor told me, “The sun going up is beautiful, but it’s not a story. The sun not coming up, now, that’s a story.” This is the sun not coming up. It’s a narrative that would appear ripe for big-budget investigative reporting, regular updates, or even chatter. It would especially seem tailor-made for an era in sports media when everything is numbingly over-discussed; an era when Tom Brady’s vigorously rubbed footballs or the presence of adorable children at NBA press conferences qualifies as subjects of endless debate. But somehow it’s not.

Now, as the Hawks square off against the Cleveland Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference Finals, this story should be re-emerging with a vengeance, and not only because Sefolosha is the only Hawk with deep playoff experience, as well as an effective defender of Cavs’ all-world superstar LeBron James. In game one, Hawks guard Demarre Carroll, their top playoff scorer and chief defender of James, went down with a knee injury. This has elevated Sefolosha’s absence from nettlesome to near-cataclysmic. Now, without Carroll or Sefolosha, the Hawks might as well assign a matador to guard James with a red cape. (Carroll’s situation, which initially looked gruesome, is officially day-to-day at this point, and he should be back later in the playoffs, although how effective he’ll be with a hyper-extended knee is anyone’s guess.)

Yet Carroll’s injury did not provoke a re-examination of what happened to Sefolosha. This near-silence has been across the sports media landscape, so it feels churlish to pick on one example, but it was both too high-profile and too evocative to ignore. On Thursday morning, Mike Greenberg, hosting ESPN’s national Mike and Mike radio show, talked about how the Hawks could possibly be able to guard LeBron without Carroll, and mentioned Thabo’s absence as well. In describing for his audience why Thabo isn’t playing, all Mike Greenberg said was, “We all know what happened there.” That was it. No mention of the NYPD, the conflicting stories, or the fact that NBA players have gone out of their way to speak about police mistreatment. Just “We all know what happened there.” Actually, we don’t all know what happened there, and that’s the point. Instead of retelling or even illuminating what we know, this line was dead on arrival. And yet “we all know what happened there” were six words more than most sports media offered this past week. Even the notably outspoken TNT team of Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, Shaquille O’Neal, and Charles Barkley had nothing to say about it on Inside the NBA, broadcast immediately after the Hawks lost to Cleveland and in the aftermath of Carroll’s injury. Yes, given Shaq’s history as a volunteer police officer and Barkley’s own comments about the Black Lives Matter movement, it might not have exactly been a rousing call for social justice, but to not even mention it was bizarre. Even Marv Albert discussed Sefolosha briefly during the broadcast. But to the TNT studio team, he was the invisible man.

I spoke to nine NBA journalists, editors, and television producers on and off the record about why this story has been objectively under-discussed. One might think they would say it’s because fans either don’t care about someone viewed as a role player or because it’s a polarizing topic and the audience will rebel if sports pundits get too political. But that’s not what I heard.

Michael Lee, The Washington Post’s national NBA writer, penned a terrific piece about the case with a series of quotes from NBA players and told me that it was his most viewed story of the entire season.

As far as a fan backlash, Sekou Smith of NBA.com and host of their Hang Time podcast has been one of the few to discuss it at length and e-mailed me that he has received “no backlash at all. I have no idea why it has gone so far off the radar. Perhaps he’s not a big enough name for our sensationalized 24-hour news cycle? The ignoring of it is just strange.”

After I fired off a series of tweets about why the media was not discussing this story more, three people from ESPN reached out to me to talk and say that they agreed. To be clear, this does not usually happen out of ESPN HQ in Bristol. People don’t air their anger with the company except in extreme circumstances. The only other time I’ve had that experience of people reaching out to me from inside the tent was when ESPN pulled out of its partnership with PBS’s League of Denial documentary about the NFL and head injuries. They did not want me using their names or exact words, out of concern of reprisals. Regarding Sefolosha, it’s fair to say that they were frustrated about the lack of resources, airtime, and enthusiasm devoted to what they saw as a monster story. They also said that they were rebuffed when they raised devoting regular time to it on ESPN’s flagship show SportsCenter. The only concrete reason one received was “people not being particularly interested in the Hawks compared to other teams in the playoffs.” They all conceded that there was little audience appetite for more Hawks coverage, but believed that the story was bigger than just the fortunes of one team.

I was able to connect with Rob King, ESPN’s Senior vice president, overseeing SportsCenter, for comment. He e-mailed me the following: “The suggestion that there has been a broader decision to spike the story is ludicrous and disappointing. We understand with great clarity the potential significance of this story and continue to report it. As for ‘discussing it more on SportsCenter,’ this is a story that deserves greater illumination, which means information, not mere discussion. That takes reporting, and that’s how we’re proceeding.”

To be clear, no one suggested that the story was “spiked” just that it was deprioritized, which is self-evident given the absence of regular coverage. That said, King’s comments that the largest entity in sports media will be all over this story as it develops is very welcome. Yet there are aspects of King’s statement that raise questions. His dismissal of people who want to “discuss” this case, in other words to analyze it without new information, is peculiar given that ESPN just “discusses” issues that affect sports constantly. Also, the “Worldwide Leader in Sports” also doesn’t just report on breaking news but breaks the news through its own investigative reporting. The recent award-winning work on Qatar’s labor practices as they prepare for the World Cup by the E:60 team, led by Jeremy Schaap and seen across several of their media platforms, is evidence of this. (Another ESPN show, Outside the Lines, has frequently covered the broader landscape of NBA players and the Black Lives Matter movement.) Also, given the incredible access ESPN has to NBA players, it is unclear why they aren’t asked their thoughts about Sefolosha. This isn’t an irrelevant question. Almost the entire Cleveland Cavaliers team wore shirts against police violence and in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Asking them about Sefolosha is more than logical. It’s obvious. But—at least by my research—it hasn’t happened on ESPN since the conference finals began.

One Cavs player, Kendrick Perkins who was a teammate of Sefolosha in Oklahoma City certainly hasn’t been shy about expressing his thoughts. He spoke at length to Michael Lee and said, “I was very shocked because Thabo is so laid back. He’s so not drama. He runs away from drama.” Other former teammates have also chimed in, like Pistons guard Reggie Jackson who said in a powerful piece by Vince Ellis for The Detroit Free Press, “I think a lot of people fear black males, so it’s scary. I’m not gonna lie, it’s kinda unfair at times as a black male. Only thing that I feel protects us is probably the celebrity status and being an NBA player, but nobody’s off limits when you see what happens to a former teammate like Thabo.” This is a perspective that ESPN’s viewers, many of course who don’t have to deal with fears of police violence, ought to hear. There are no shortage of NBA players willing to give some copy on this issue if asked.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

It is certainly true is that despite their 60-win season, the Atlanta Hawks garner less national interest that any of the other teams remaining in the playoffs. But it doesn’t explain why the Atlanta media, as the team competes in their first NBA conference finals in franchise history, has been so lackluster on this story. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has 30 articles in its archives that contain the words “Thabo” and “police” although the overwhelming majority comprise either offhand mentions, wire reports, or short updates on the case. It’s not that there isn’t local interest. Just by tweeting about Sefolosha, my twitter handle trended in Atlanta, according to Trendsmaps. That’s kind of absurd. One Atlanta-based journalist said to me, “When it’s talked about on sports radio it’s just blame Thabo for being out late and move on. Not much deeper than that.”

The more I spoke to people, the clearer it was that this story has not garnered more coverage because of how the media police themselves. One person at Yahoo Sports said to me, “We censor ourselves. We’re risk-averse. White columnists feel like they’d get the story wrong, and black columnists don’t want the responsibility and risk of having to be the ones to write about it. We end up in a state of paralysis.”

Not everyone has been paralyzed, however, and it’s not always the case that the media silence themselves. There are still those columnists willing to play police if one of the brethren gets out of line. Turner Sports sideline reporter and former longtime print journalist David Aldridge spoke lucidly and directly about Thabo case in the middle of a live telecast. In just over a minute of airtime, Aldridge managed to report on Sefolosha’s surgery and the reaction of the franchise, and had breaking news comments from the new executive director of the NBA Players Association, Michelle Roberts, who confirmed that it were conducting its own investigation and said, “The best I can tell you is that there is no video at all to justify the way the police treated them.”

For his trouble, he was treated to a column in the New York Post by the reliably awful Phil Mushnick titled “David Aldridge ignores stabbing details to unfairly bash NYPD.”

The “details” that Mushnick felt were omitted were basically that Sefolosha was asking for it by being out at 4 am. Charming.

But Mushnick plays the role of buffoon with regularity and is an easy foil. This kind of media policing is the exception. A more apt analysis is probably that the sports media world does not want to be perceived as criticizing or even discussing the role of police in our society, particularly in the black community. One can understand why someone in a position of authority on a newspaper or at a network could identify this as an excessively polarizing subject and, without breaking news generated by Thabo Sefolosha’s camp, unnecessarily hazardous. But not putting a spotlight on such an unprecedented set of circumstances also represents an impulse to not unnecessarily upset the police or their supporters. This impulse appears to be even stronger than the drive for ratings or page views. This impulse represents a timidity that takes a story which could act as a lens toward educating people about a national crisis and consigns it to the dustbin. Meanwhile as thousands march in solidarity with Freddie Gray’s family in Baltimore, or gather in New York’s Union Square to say that the lives of black women matter, Thabo Sefolosha is on crutches. His team needs him and the NBA Finals hang in the balance, but he has a broken leg courtesy of the NYPD. Nope, nothing to see here.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/208009/nb ... ia-silence

[Dominus Atheos]

Prosecutorial and police misconduct are often dismissed as just a few bad apples doing a few bad apple-ish things. But what happens when it’s entrenched and systemic and goes unchecked for years? That looks to be the case in Orange County, California, where the situation got so completely out of hand this spring that Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals issued an order disqualifying the entire Orange County District Attorney’s Office (that’s all 250 prosecutors) from continuing to prosecute a major death penalty case.

After literally years of alleged misconduct involving jailhouse informants, as well as prosecutors’ repeated failures to turn over exculpatory material, Judge Goethals determined in March that the office can simply no longer work on the case of mass murderer Scott Dekraai, who pleaded guilty last year to killing his ex-wife and seven others at a beauty salon in 2011.

Revelations of misconduct in the Dekraai case have raised questions about patterns of obstruction and deception that have unraveled various other murder cases in the county, which has a population larger than that of 20 different states. Other cases involving informants who were eliciting illegal confessions have emerged, entire cases have collapsed, and more may follow. The story goes way back to the 1980s, as R. Scott Moxley explains at length in the OC Weekly, to a prosecutorial scandal that ended in the execution of one defendant and a lengthy sentence for his alleged co-conspirator. Their convictions were based on the testimony of various jailhouse informants even though they told conflicting stories. That scandal rocked the area then, and this new one shows eerie parallels.

All this is happening right up the road from Los Angeles, home of one of the most massive jailhouse informant scandals in history. In 1989, in an infamous interview with 60 Minutes and an explosive piece in the Los Angeles Times, former jailhouse snitch Leslie Vernon White demonstrated how he fabricated the confessions of other inmates, then leveraged them for reduced sentences. The White revelations led to a grand jury investigation that revealed that jailhouse snitches often lied, and that police and prosecutors—knowing they were lying—used them anyhow. L.A. has since enacted significant reforms of its jailhouse informant policies. Not so Orange County. And both the scope and scale of the Orange County shenanigans are remarkable.

One issue in the Dekraai case is whether deputies deliberately placed him near a prized informant to elicit illegal confessions. While preparing for the penalty phase of the trial, Santa Ana assistant public defender Scott Sanders, who is defending Dekraai, discovered that a jailhouse informant who had produced damning evidence about his client had done the same thing in another case Sanders was handling. After further investigation, Sanders claimed that a branch of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department called “special handling” would deliberately place jailhouse snitches in cells next to high-value inmates awaiting trials, with instructions to collect confessions, a practice that is unconstitutional.

Together with his law clerks, Sanders spent a year unearthing and then reconstructing a tranche of 60,000 pages of records indicating that the county sheriff’s office routinely used and coordinated with those informants to get around the constitutional prohibition on eliciting incriminating statements from defendants who had lawyered up and should not have been interrogated. The sheriff’s department has admitted that mistakes were made. The DA’s office claims there was nothing coordinated or systemic going on. But Judge Goethals disagreed, finding that the new revelations called into question the integrity of the entire Orange County District Attorney’s office.

Initially, Judge Goethals had ruled that the DA’s office was negligent in failing to turn exculpatory information over, finding that “the district attorney’s well-documented failures in this case, although disappointing, even disheartening to any interested member of this community, were negligent rather than malicious.” But that seems to have changed following further revelations of refusal to turn over evidence.

In an explosive moment following a hearing last year, Sanders revealed that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has maintained a massive, secret, 25-year-old computerized record-keeping system called TRED. These TRED documents were full of potentially exculpatory data, but the agency officials had systematically refused to turn any of them over, or even acknowledge their very existence, to defense counsel.

In his March order, Goethals wrote: “It is now apparent that the discovery situation in this case is far worse than the court previously realized. In fact, a wealth of potentially relevant discovery material—an entire computerized data base built and maintained by the Orange County Sheriff over the course of many years which is a repository for information related directly to the very issues that this court was examining as a result of the defendant’s motion—remained secret, despite numerous specific discovery orders issued by this court, until long after the initial evidentiary hearing in this case was concluded and rulings were made.”

Laura Fernandez of Yale Law School, who studies prosecutorial misconduct, says it’s amazing that both the sheriff’s office and the DA’s office worked together to cover up the misconduct: “From my perspective,” she says, “what really sets Orange County apart is the massive cover-up by both law enforcement and prosecutors—a cover-up that appears to have risen to the level of perjury and obstruction of justice. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors in Orange County have gone to such lengths to conceal their wide-ranging misconduct that they have effectively turned the criminal justice system on its head: dismissing charges and reducing sentences in extraordinarily serious cases, utterly failing to investigate unsolved crimes and many murders (by informants—in order to prevent that evidence from ever getting to defense lawyers), while simultaneously pushing forward where it would seem to make no sense (except that it conceals more bad acts by the state), as in the case of an innocent 14-year old boy who was wrongfully detained for two years.”

Dekraai has already pled guilty to killing eight people, so the issue in his case is whether his due process rights have been violated with respect to his sentence. His attorney, Sanders, says he should be ineligible for the death penalty because of the misconduct by the prosecution and the sheriff’s department. Judge Goethals has thus far declined to take capital punishment off the table. California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office was supposed to have inherited the prosecution of the Dekraai case, but she has appealed Goethals’ ruling. She also announced that her office will launch an investigation into all allegations. That has elicited its own criticism, with legal experts suggesting that a truly independent investigation needs to be launched; one that recognizes that the close ties between the attorney general’s office and the DA’s office warrant a completely neutral commission.

What’s wrong with using jailhouse informants? It depends on how they are used. Testimony from snitches is certainly legal—even if the informant gets rewarded with a reduced sentence or material benefits or even cold, hard cash. But evidently the Orange County informants were deliberately moved to be closer to high value targets, they taped their conversations, and the records of much of this conduct were then hidden. As Dean Erwin Chemerinsky explains, the Constitution limits the use of jailhouse informants to situations in which statements are made voluntarily to cellmates, not orchestrated and recorded by jailhouse officials, all of which makes the interaction too much like an interrogation. The 1964 Supreme Court case Massiah v. United States bars the government from eliciting incriminating statements from a defendant after the right to counsel has kicked in. In Dekraai’s case the issue was how jailhouse informant Fernando Perez found his way into a cell next to Dekraai, befriended him, and then reported hearing him “bragging” about the Seal Beach murders.

The answer to that question is troubling. According to a 505-page motion filed by Sanders, Dekraai was somehow placed next to a guy known as “Inmate F,” (Perez) who then buddied up to Dekraai, heard all he had to say and then—to hear prosecutors tell it—came forward out of the goodness of his heart. As Sanders explained:

It appeared that the prosecution had been the recipient of extraordinarily good luck. The inmate housed closest to Dekraai was a good listener, a great note taker, and someone so selfless that he wanted to assist the OCDA [Orange County district attorney] and local law enforcement without wishing for anything in return. OCDA Investigator Erickson's subsequently written report confirmed this picture of Inmate F. The prosecution promised nothing in return for his assistance, which was perfect for Inmate F. because he wanted nothing.
The problem for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office arose after Sanders started digging into details about Inmate F and happened upon, just for starters, a note in his file stating: “WAS TERMINATED AS A C.I. [confidential informant]—DO NOT USE AS A C.I.” as well as his colorful history of three-strikes convictions and conspiracies to murder fellow inmates.

Last August, Judge Goethals ruled that prosecutors couldn’t use the Perez statements during the penalty phase of the trial, but he also found that there was no evidence of a conspiracy, just that mistakes were made. But after Sanders found the TRED records, it became clear that sheriff’s officials—not a nurse, as they had sworn, under oath—had put Perez next to Dekraai’s cell, and that the violations were likely deliberate and coordinated.


PreviousNext

Hastert Speaks During Clinton Impeachment Proceedings

Bernie Sanders Answers Questions in Iowa

No Decisions Yet, But “I hope I run” For President

Worst Person in Westeros: Jaqen H’ghar

Aloha: My Brain is Unpickable

Mad Max: Fury Road – Furiosa

How Big Is The Sun

First 8 Minutes of Aloha

World's First Murder

Jack Warner References Onion Article in Rant

Vice President Biden Discusses Grief at TAPS

Rand Paul Speaks Out Against PATRIOT Act: 5/31/15

The Hunting Ground: Official Trailer

Mosaic: Abundant Clean Energy For & By The People

Entourage: Medellin Trailer

Entourage Movie: Good News and Bad News

Entourage Movie: Vince Wants to Direct

Los Aldeanos: Mandamos a Parar

Hermanos de Causa: Lagrimas Negras

Caitlyn Jenner Comes Out

Twister: Bill's Confession

The LEGO Movie - Emmett vs. Lord Business

Results: I'm Not the Food Police

Hastert's Strange C-SPAN Call

Introducing the new Google Photos

Mad Men: Montage Finale

Ratatouille Ego's Review

Rename Saunders: #KickOutTheKKK at UNC

American Ultra: Red Band Trailer

Why Do Wedding Dresses Cost So Much?

House Slate: Save Sansa Stark

Trevor Noah’s New and Sexy Daily Show

How 'Animals' Gets Made

Halt and Catch Fire: Sneak Peek Scene From Season 2

Paul Ryan Cut, Cap and Balance the Budget

Aquarius: Emma meets Charlie Manson

Aquarius Trailer

Democrats Celebrate Health Care Victory

Scott Dekraai Press Conference

Pawn Sacrifice: Trailer

Animals: Sundance 2015

CBS LA: Dekraai Pleads Guilty

The End of the Tour: Official Trailer

Point Break: Official Trailer

Bernie Sanders Before Official Campaign Launch

Cersei gets Outsmarted by the High Sparrow

The Briefcase - Bag Of Emotions

World Cup in Qatar 2022

Jim Inhofe Throws Snowball on Senate Floor

Blade Runner: She's a Replicant

The Diary of a Teenage Girl: Trailer

Lindsey Graham Addresses the SRLC

The Briefcase: How Much Would You Share?

Amy Schumer on The Bachelorette

Alan Keyes Barred from Presidential Debate

Worst Person in Westeros: Cersei

House Slate Episode Seven

When is Cheryl's Birthday?

Fredericksburg PD Use of Force Video: Jurgens

Fast and Furious - Deep Voices

McDonald's: The Man in Stripes

What Does Drowning Look Like?

Landing Your First Job

Celebrity Workouts

The Human Centipede 3 Official Trailer
Alexandra Natapoff, who teaches at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and wrote the book Snitching, explains that the reason this is an important story is that it affords “a rare glimpse into something the criminal justice system does that it actually does all the time.” She adds: “What’s newsworthy is not that it’s unique. What’s newsworthy is that we actually found out. What Scott Sanders did is a public service: He showed us something shocking and also unfortunately run of the mill.”

The problem with the system set up in Orange County, according to Sanders, was that jailhouse informants were asked to collect incriminating statements and then share them with prosecutors in exchange for reduced charges or other favors. Last November, the Orange County Register reported that two prolific informants with extensive criminal records had received more than $150,000 from law enforcement agencies for obtaining information from jailed suspects awaiting trials.

And even though snitching happens everywhere, and inmates are well aware that there are benefits to be gained for eliciting information, there are few mechanisms that exist to correct the perverse incentive to trade false information for rewards. As Moxley notes, the Los Angeles Times’ 1989 investigation, Jailhouse Snitches: Trading Lies for Freedom, exposed many of these problems. The article quoted Steve Vulpis, then an L.A. County Jail inmate, who admitted he and other informants told prosecutors anything they wanted to hear in order “to go home.” The story also quoted one informant from Orange County: “He was blunt in his assessment of courtroom shams conducted by other snitches and sponsored by the government, saying, ‘A way you can get around maybe not being able to get a confession right away [from a targeted inmate] is create one.’ ” The problem persists after all these years. In a report this week for America Tonight, Al Jazeera obtained damning tapes of likely Orange County snitches negotiating for testimony.

The Dekraai case became a turning point in Orange County when Judge Goethals got mad. He found that two deputies, Ben Garcia and Seth Tunstall, who belonged to the “special handling” unit dealing with informants, testified falsely to the court, denying the very existence of the TRED records at a crucial hearing last year. He also found that a prosecutor, Eric Petersen, had testified falsely.

Natapoff observes that another stunning aspect of the Orange County scandal is that a defense team was able to break through the prosecutors’ and sheriff’s office wall of silence. “Here you have longstanding collusion between the sheriff’s department and the DA’s office, and then the willingness to lie about the practice, even to the extent of committing perjury, under oath, in court to cover up those practices.” Noting that most everything about jailhouse informants happens in what she calls a “culture of secrecy,” Natapoff recalls that at the start of this case nobody would believe Sanders’ claims. He sounded like a conspiracy nut. This despite the fact that everyone knew this, or something like this, could be happening.

In the end it took a crusading public defender and a judge finally willing to believe him to smoke out the wrongdoing. In tossing the entire DA’s office off the Dekraai case, Judge Goethals wrote that “certain aspects of the district attorney’s performance in this case might be described as a comedy of errors but for the fact that it has been so sadly deficient. … There is nothing funny about that.” The disqualification of an entire prosecutor’s office rarely, if ever, occurs. But Judge Goethals finally concluded that in hiding exculpatory evidence, and then covering up the whole mess, the “District Attorney has a conflict of interest in this case, which has actually deprived this defendant of due process in the past.”

Why should we care what happens to Dekraai, a confessed serial murderer? We should care about the system, not the man who committed this atrocity. “Dekraai is a very bad defendant,” says Natapoff. “And we permit these unconstitutional practices to persist because at some level some people do feel that criminals should be apprehended by any means necessary and this exonerates the behavior of the law enforcement officials. But it’s a Faustian bargain,” she says, and it represents the cultural view of people who have “come to despair that justice can ever be conducted in a constitutional and lawful way.”

The constitutional protections built into our criminal justice system are not perfect. But the events of the past year in Orange County reveal that the alternative—a nihilistic sense that we can do whatever we must to nail the criminals—is far more dangerous. Especially if we let the most dangerous criminals walk in exchange for snitching in trivial cases. Yet more dangerous still is our tendency to turn a blind eye on the practices that are now coming to light in Orange County. They happen in secret because not enough people want to know about them. And they will continue to happen because so many people keep trying so hard not to care.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ney.2.html

[Elheru Aran]

...you got a weird block of crap in the middle of your copy-paste text there.

[Dominus Atheos]

So I've mostly stopped posting individual incidents of police abuse because I'm pretty sure everyone is sick of them, and mostly keep to posting either systemic abuse or incidents involving the the criminal justice system, where several police officer, prosecutors, and a judge all agreed to abuse someone.

This shows how easy it is for a cop to get off no matter how ridiculous his defense:

Police union's website:

On May 28, 2013, at about 1 a.m., Fort Worth Police Officers Richard Hoeppner and Benjamin Hanlon responded to a call involving a residential burglar alarm. While investigating the alarm call, both officers observed an open garage door in the rear of the residence with one vehicle conspicuously parked in the driveway.

Officers Alex Hoeppner and Ben Hanlon split up to perform a perimeter search of the residence. Officer Hoeppner investigated the rear of the residence while Officer Hanlon went to the front.

Suddenly, a door inside of the garage opened and a man holding a gun stepped out. Officer Hoeppner immediately drew his service weapon, pointed it at the armed person, and gave repeated loud verbal commands to “drop the gun!”

Officer Hanlon heard Hoeppner yelling and he ran to Officer Hoeppner’s aid. When Officer Hanlon rounded the rear of the house, he observed a man inside the garage holding a gun at his side and disregarding Officer Hoeppner’s repeated demands to “drop the gun!”

Officer Hanlon pointed his service weapon at the armed suspect and repeatedly yelled “Fort Worth Police Department!” in conjunction with Officer Hoeppner’s repeated commands to “drop the gun!”

The armed man refused to drop the gun and proceeded to reposition himself several times inside of the garage before deciding to place the gun on the trunk lid of a car parked in the garage.

After placing the gun on the trunk lid, the man took several steps away and waited. When Officer Hoeppner began to move toward the gun to secure it, the suspect quickly lunged for it and grabbed it before Officer Hoeppner was able to reach it. The man picked up the gun and pointed it at Officer Hoeppner. Officer Hoeppner shot and killed him.

CLEAT Attorney Vincent Wisely responded to the scene within minutes. It was later determined that the address of the shooting was not the same address as the dispatched burglar alarm, and the armed man was the homeowner.

CLEAT is the police union, and this is their version of events.

Two months before the Grand Jury’s review of this shooting, the District Attorney informed CLEAT attorneys that they would be taking a neutral position in this case and would not be giving a recommendation to the Grand Jury or commenting on the evidence presented.

(Apparently that's a thing?)

...

This information prompted CLEAT to put together a first-class Grand Jury legal team for Officer Hoeppner, which included CLEAT Staff Attorneys, reputable local criminal defense attorneys, and a renowned force expert.

The CLEAT Legal Team spent countless hours preparing for this Grand Jury presentation. After a weeklong proceeding, the Grand Jury concluded last week that the actions of Officer Hoeppner to be reasonable and justified under the facts and evidence presented.

Here's Police State USA's article about it, and a local news report, but there isn't any new information, and they aren't important here anyway. The above is the Grand Jury heard. (And apparently is all the Grand Jury heard)

And they voted not to indict.

[Mr Bean]

Daily Kos

On August 11, 2014, Dillon Taylor walked out of a local Salt Lake City, Utah, convenience store minding his own business. He wasn't armed. He wasn't committing a crime. He was listening to music on his headphones, probably in his own world.

Just two days after Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed an unarmed Mike Brown in Ferguson, Taylor would soon face a similar fate at the hands of a local officer. And on October 1, the district attorney in Salt Lake City, Sim Gill, ruled that the killing of 20-year-old Taylor was justified. Even in his determination, though, he stated that "Taylor's shooting was justified not because he posed an actual threat, but because (Officer) Cruz reasonably perceived a threat."

Now that the full video has been released, it's disturbingly clear that nothing about this police shooting was justified. Nothing at all.

At 0:17, Officer Bron Cruz gets out of his vehicle. You will notice people confused by his presence.

At 0:22, Officer Cruz walks past two men who were friends with Dillon Taylor.

At 0:24, Officer Cruz walks behind Taylor, who has on a white T-shirt and is listening to music.

At 0:33, we see the officer has his gun drawn and is yelling at Taylor, who's holding his sagging pants up and does not appear to hear Cruz.

At 0:36, the officer shoots Taylor. It would be fatal.

Starting at 0:41, you will notice the headphone cord coming out of Taylor's pocket.

At 0:48, you will see that the headphones were clearly going up to Taylor's ears.

At 0:52, the officer asks Dillon to "give me your hands," but Taylor is already near death. His friends begin screaming and crying in the background.

At 1:03, the officer handcuffs Taylor.

At 1:48, the officer turns Taylor over, the headphones are visible, and the officer states "it's clear"—meaning that Taylor was actually unarmed.

At 2:54, the officer turns Taylor completely over, keeping him handcuffed, and begins talking to him and trying to get him to talk. Taylor appears nearly dead and is completely covered in blood.

At 4:56, the officer is rummaging through Taylor's pockets instead of providing any first aid.

View the video below.

I watched the video, can be summed up as such.... three guys are standing by a Pickup truck one walks away, cop with drawn gun follows him yells at him twice to turn around, second time guy turns around standing still a gun is pointed at him then he's shot. He bleeds out and dies while the cop frisks him for weapons.

He holds still he does not move, the cop shouts at him then shoots. No aggressive or quick movements, a clear case of a unjustified shooting ruled justified because the cop felt in danger.

[KroLazuxy_87]

Underage Girl Brushes Off Cop’s Flirting Attempt, So She’s Swarmed by Cops, Groped and Arrested

After the rejection, the cop became aggressive with Natalie Erlich and arrested her on bogus charges.

By John Vibes | The Free Thought Project June 3, 2015

New York City, NY — A teenager from the Bronx was recently paid $45,000 after she was wrongfully arrested and sexually harassed by a police officer. The officer was also assisted by a number of other NYPD cops who helped him take her into custody.

The incident occurred on November 4th of 2013 when a young girl named Natalie Erlich, who was 17-years-old at the time, was walking home from school. During her walk, she was approached by Officer José Peinan and another cop who were not in uniform and did not identify themselves as police officers.

According to court documents, Peinan made several attempts to flirt with the girl but was immediately brushed off, much to his disappointment. After the rejection, Peinan became aggressive with the girl and arrested her on bogus charges. The officer claimed that since the girl asked if he was a police officer, that she had “blown his cover.”

“I had on a camouflage hat and [Peinan] had on camouflage pants. He said, ‘We match.’ I brushed him off and I laughed,” Erlich told The New York Post. After that, she said that she attempted to walk away and avoid him, and that is when he became more aggressive.

“He said something slick like, ‘Where are you going?’” she said, adding that she told Peinan that she was going home and asked if he was a cop.

When the officer replied by saying “maybe,” she then told him that was “a cop answer,” and at that moment a swarm of officers descended upon the girl, and Peinan told them to handcuff her and take her into custody.

When asked why she was being arrested, Peinan told her that “You know why, you’re being a smartass.”

Erlich and one of her friends were then taken to jail and not released until 11 a.m the following day.

When she was finally released, Erlich decided to file a lawsuit against the officers and the police department for wrongful arrest and sexual harassment. According to the lawsuit, the girls were arrested because the officer was “angered at having his advances rebuffed.”

The lawsuit also states that the Erlich was groped by police while they were arresting her.

To avoid more details coming out in court, the city agreed to settle the case with a $45,000 hush payment.

Officer Peinan is currently the target of 3 other lawsuits and has reportedly not received any disciplinary action.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Daily Kos

On August 11, 2014, Dillon Taylor walked out of a local Salt Lake City, Utah, convenience store minding his own business. He wasn't armed. He wasn't committing a crime. He was listening to music on his headphones, probably in his own world.

Just two days after Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed an unarmed Mike Brown in Ferguson, Taylor would soon face a similar fate at the hands of a local officer. And on October 1, the district attorney in Salt Lake City, Sim Gill, ruled that the killing of 20-year-old Taylor was justified. Even in his determination, though, he stated that "Taylor's shooting was justified not because he posed an actual threat, but because (Officer) Cruz reasonably perceived a threat."

Now that the full video has been released, it's disturbingly clear that nothing about this police shooting was justified. Nothing at all.

At 0:17, Officer Bron Cruz gets out of his vehicle. You will notice people confused by his presence.

At 0:22, Officer Cruz walks past two men who were friends with Dillon Taylor.

At 0:24, Officer Cruz walks behind Taylor, who has on a white T-shirt and is listening to music.

At 0:33, we see the officer has his gun drawn and is yelling at Taylor, who's holding his sagging pants up and does not appear to hear Cruz.

At 0:36, the officer shoots Taylor. It would be fatal.

Starting at 0:41, you will notice the headphone cord coming out of Taylor's pocket.

At 0:48, you will see that the headphones were clearly going up to Taylor's ears.

At 0:52, the officer asks Dillon to "give me your hands," but Taylor is already near death. His friends begin screaming and crying in the background.

At 1:03, the officer handcuffs Taylor.

At 1:48, the officer turns Taylor over, the headphones are visible, and the officer states "it's clear"—meaning that Taylor was actually unarmed.

At 2:54, the officer turns Taylor completely over, keeping him handcuffed, and begins talking to him and trying to get him to talk. Taylor appears nearly dead and is completely covered in blood.

At 4:56, the officer is rummaging through Taylor's pockets instead of providing any first aid.

View the video below.

I watched the video, can be summed up as such.... three guys are standing by a Pickup truck one walks away, cop with drawn gun follows him yells at him twice to turn around, second time guy turns around standing still a gun is pointed at him then he's shot. He bleeds out and dies while the cop frisks him for weapons.

He holds still he does not move, the cop shouts at him then shoots. No aggressive or quick movements, a clear case of a unjustified shooting ruled justified because the cop felt in danger.

The Daily Kos has done an absolutely miserable job reporting this story. The police were called to this store on a report of a man with a gun. Dillion Taylor matched the description. At 0:37 Dillion lifts up his shirt with his left hand and what you don't see is him reaching for his waistband with his right hand. That's why he was shot. By the way if you listen you can hear Dillion Taylor say "nah fool" in response to Officer Cruz orders.

I will continue to explain this to you until it sinks in. Police do not have to wait until a bullet goes whizzing past their head to use deadly force. If you move your hands to areas where guns are normally kept, like the waistband, then you can be shot and it will be ruled justified. This is court precedence and doesn't just apply to police but regular people as well.

This video contains a slowed down version of the shooting near the end.

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=1d2_1433439811

[Kamakazie Sith]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5912976

Here's a link to the full story and not that garbage from the Daily Kos.

Sorry can't post the story. I'm on a mobile and at work.

[Flagg]

Underage Girl Brushes Off Cop’s Flirting Attempt, So She’s Swarmed by Cops, Groped and Arrested

After the rejection, the cop became aggressive with Natalie Erlich and arrested her on bogus charges.

By John Vibes | The Free Thought Project June 3, 2015

New York City, NY — A teenager from the Bronx was recently paid $45,000 after she was wrongfully arrested and sexually harassed by a police officer. The officer was also assisted by a number of other NYPD cops who helped him take her into custody.

The incident occurred on November 4th of 2013 when a young girl named Natalie Erlich, who was 17-years-old at the time, was walking home from school. During her walk, she was approached by Officer José Peinan and another cop who were not in uniform and did not identify themselves as police officers.

According to court documents, Peinan made several attempts to flirt with the girl but was immediately brushed off, much to his disappointment. After the rejection, Peinan became aggressive with the girl and arrested her on bogus charges. The officer claimed that since the girl asked if he was a police officer, that she had “blown his cover.”

“I had on a camouflage hat and [Peinan] had on camouflage pants. He said, ‘We match.’ I brushed him off and I laughed,” Erlich told The New York Post. After that, she said that she attempted to walk away and avoid him, and that is when he became more aggressive.

“He said something slick like, ‘Where are you going?’” she said, adding that she told Peinan that she was going home and asked if he was a cop.

When the officer replied by saying “maybe,” she then told him that was “a cop answer,” and at that moment a swarm of officers descended upon the girl, and Peinan told them to handcuff her and take her into custody.

When asked why she was being arrested, Peinan told her that “You know why, you’re being a smartass.”

Erlich and one of her friends were then taken to jail and not released until 11 a.m the following day.

When she was finally released, Erlich decided to file a lawsuit against the officers and the police department for wrongful arrest and sexual harassment. According to the lawsuit, the girls were arrested because the officer was “angered at having his advances rebuffed.”

The lawsuit also states that the Erlich was groped by police while they were arresting her.

To avoid more details coming out in court, the city agreed to settle the case with a $45,000 hush payment.

Officer Peinan is currently the target of 3 other lawsuits and has reportedly not received any disciplinary action.

Sounds about right. The only thing that would just scream NYPD more than Officer Rapevibe, is if she and her friend ran, they all pulled their guns (weapons, not 1cm penisi), and unloaded them at the fleeing underage girls, failing to hit anything but random bystanders. Then, promotions for all!

[KroLazuxy_87]

Ohio Cop Shoots 4-Year-Old Girl While Trying to Shoot Family Dog

A 4-year-old girl is in the hospital tonight after being shot by a Columbus police officer who was only trying to kill the family dog.

The incident occurred Friday afternoon when a woman called the Ohio cop over for help with her sister who had cut herself.

The officer, who had been walking out of a home where he had been investigating a hit-and-run accident, made his way to the other family’s home.

But when he stood in the doorway, he claims the family dog came charging at him, so he pulled out his gun and fired, striking the child in the right leg.

It remains unclear if it was a direct shot or a ricochet. Her mother rushed her to the hospital where she is reportedly in stable condition. The officer’s name has not been released.

According to the Columbus Dispatch:

Neighbors say the officer walked back to his patrol car after the shooting.
“He seemed a little disoriented, like he was really bothered,” said Norman Jones, who called the police after hearing the shot. Columbus and Whitehall police arrived at the scene shortly afterward.
Neighbors say Ellis came out of the house saying her daughter had been shot.
The officer was not injured.
Neighbor Carrie Britton said the family has two dogs and that they were on shock collars and couldn’t get out of the house.
Two dogs were being held in the back of the house after the shooting, according to police.
A neighbor and the girl’s uncle identified her as Ava Ellis. The name of the officer has not yet been released.
Local media is already downplaying the injury, referring to a gunshot wound as a cut.

In January, Autumn Steele, a 34-year-old mother was killed by an Iowa police officer in front of her 4-year-old son as the officer was attempting to shoot their family pet.

Burlington police officer Jesse Hill began shooting at the dog, but fell backwards in the snow, continuing to shoot as he landed. One of the bullets pierced through Autumn’s chest.

Hill was cleared in the shooting, but now Iowa State Senator Chuck Grassley is calling for a federal investigation.

According to an unofficial count done by an independent research group, Ozymandias Media, law enforcement in the United States shoots a dog every 98 minutes. If that statistic isn’t enough for you to want to push for better training regarding the handling of animals, then maybe the collateral damage should be.

Earlier this week, we reported that a 6-year-old child mistakenly called 911 in San Francisco, resulting in officers responding and killing the family dog.

" law enforcement in the United States shoots a dog every 98 minutes"