on sale now at amazon

on sale now at amazon
"I don't like this book because it don't got know pictures" Chief Rhorerer

“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”

“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”
“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”

And the Fairfax County Cops get away with it once again




A video posted 15 second video online of a Fairfax County cop using a stun gun during an arrest has triggered an internal inquiry into the cop’s use of force. The Fairfax County Police investigated the cop and …wait for it…..found him innocent of any wrong doing!
 ‘This is a very, very short snippet of information.  We don’t know everything that led up to the event.  We don’t know everything that happened after,” says Fairfax County Police 2nd Lt. Brooke Wright in a stupid statement….in other words there is a reason to stun gun a man for no reason at all.  
The cop hasn’t been identified of course nor will he ever be.
Elton Cansler stole a pair of cheap sunglasses from a bank. The bank called the police. 
The cops saw Cansler hanging around a 7-11 across from the bank. The cop drove up to Cansler and reported that “Cansler immediately put his hands in his front pockets.” No one else saw that except the cop.
The cop, according to witness, was highly agitated and nervous and screamed at Cansler to remove his hands from his front pockets and asked him if he taken the sunglasses.
Cansler took his hands out of his pockets and said that he had taken the sunglasses.
So, so far, the young man, took some sunglasses, walked across the street and stood around, followed the cop’s orders and admitted he had committed a crime.
The cops says he saw a knife clipped, in full view, on Canslers pant pocket.
The knife was not hidden.
Cansler compiled with the angry cop.
Cansler did not try to flee.
The cop asked where the sunglasses were and Cansler told him and tried to move to get the sunglasses…the cop told him not to move but Cansler reached into his back pocket and handed over the sunglasses.
After that point the cop version of reality and what several witnesses saw vary greatly.
The cop says Cansler resisted his efforts to be handcuffed. Witness say the cop gave a series of conflicting orders to the man.
As the film shows, Canslers had his back to cop as he was commanded to do and the cop tasered to the ground…over a pair of sunglasses
Remarkably Cansler AND NOT THE COP was arrested for assault.
 The videographer told the Washington Post that he watched the man walking down the sidewalk; then a cop “pulled up, blocked his way.” So he got his cell phone and starting filming, returning to the scene just as the cop took out his Taser. Another cop forced him to stop taping the interaction. Afterward, he posted it on Facebook.
In the witness’ opinion, there didn’t appear to be any immediate reason for the cop to use his stun gun on this man, telling Fox 5 “He told him to turn around. He turned around he complied. And boom he popped out his Taser and he shot at him …”
Another witness said “A gentleman just happened to be walking down the sidewalk and the cop pulls up in front of him and tells him to turn over. And as soon as he has his back turned toward him, he Tasers him. He didn’t see it coming. He did not try to run or nothing. That was wrong. How the police, unless he was wanted. But if he was wanted, the guy didn’t have to Taser him like he did.”



Video Shows Fairfax County Officer Using Stun Gun, People Question Use o...

disarming the cops

About half of the cops in the US joined the police out of Dominate Father-Penis envy issues and having official sanction to carry a gun does a lot for them in dealing with those issues. These are the thugs who shoot people, with a reason and without a reason. Take away their guns and this type of loon will stop applying to the police. Here’s some ways to do that.   

Alternatives to Bullets
From liquids that smell like dead animals to high-temperature heat rays, the present and future of non-lethal weapons.

By ELI HAGER
In the wake of recent high-profile police shootings, manufacturers of non-lethal weapons have seized on the opportunity to sell devices they say might have saved the lives of Michael Brown, Walter Scott, Tamir Rice, and many others. Companies with names like Micron Products, Alternative Ballistics, and Bruzer Less Lethal International are now a part of the decades-old field of less-lethal weapons — also called “compliance” or “pacification” devices — offering everything from bullets that don’t penetrate to devices that slow bullets down.
“I just looked out there and there wasn’t anything that really would have been practical and useful in a tense one-on-one situation like in Ferguson,” says Christian Ellis, the CEO of Alternative Ballistics, which tried to sell one such device to the Ferguson police department. “That’s why we got into this business.”
Police officers, for their part, already have less-lethal tools on their belts — nightsticks, pepper spray, and TASERs — and some feel that the additional options are not much more useful despite their variety and complexity. “It’s like comparing phone plans,” says Sid Heal, former commander in the L.A.P.D. and an expert on less-lethal force.
Whatever the future holds for these alternatives, police departments already have, in recent years, added a few gentler tools to their arsenals. Below, an inventory of some of those tools, as well as a look at what might flood the market soon.

Bean Bags
A sock-shaped pouch filled with lead, silicone, or rubber balls, fired from a shotgun. The pouch expands in the air for wider impact.
Approximate cost: $4.50 to $6.50 per round.
When it’s most useful: Anytime a person is "noncompliant" but far away and "not yet a direct threat," says Steve Ijames, the police chief in Republic, Mo. and an expert on less-lethal force.
Effect on target: Pain, muscle spasms, and temporary immobility, but no penetration of the skin.
Why it’s appealing: It’s inexpensive.
Potential downsides: Unless a shotgun containing bean bags is adequately marked in a different color (usually orange), it can easily be confused with a shotgun loaded with real shells, which police call "cross-contamination" and has repeatedly causeddeaths, according to the National Institute of Justice. Even if the correct gun is used, there is a risk of serious or deadly injury if the bean bag is fired at the head — and it’s difficult to avoid hitting the head, face, throat, or center of the chest "when a person is twisting or running around," says Heal.
Where it’s used: Different versions of bean bags have existed for over three decades, and are perhaps the most widely-used non-lethal weapon outside of the TASER, pepper spray, and nightstick. As the technology has evolved (from a flatter, squarer bag that was inaccurate as a projectile and sometimes failed to expand properly mid-air), it has become significantly less dangerous.

Blunt-Impact Projectiles
Plastic bullets (37 mm or 40 mm) capped with gel, silicone, or foam, fired from a single-shot gas launcher or giant revolver. The bullets are designed to flatten upon impact. They can also be filled with pepper spray or liquids that smell like fecal matter, rotten eggs, or dead animals, to further repel the suspect.
Approximate cost: $350 to $1200 for the gun, $25 per round.
When it’s most useful: Subduing a potentially violent suspect from a distance, and when the officer has time to get a large, specialized weapon out of the trunk.
Effect on target: Severe, blunt pain.
Why it’s appealing: The projectiles have a soft, wide surface of impact and should not be able to pierce through skin or injure internal organs.
Potential downsides: Very expensive and only useful at long range; also liable to cause serious or deadly injury if fired at the head, neck, or chest.
Where it’s used: The newest version has already been purchased by at least 16 law-enforcement agencies, including the SWAT teams in L.A. County and Sacramento.

Pepperballs
Small (.68-inch), round, plastic balls filled with synthetic capsaicin powder, the active ingredient in chili peppers. A paintball-style gun rapidly fires the balls, which explode after hitting any surface, releasing the powder.
Approximate cost: $150 to $300 for a paintball gun or $250 to $500 for a brand-name PepperBall gun; $3 to $5 per round.
When it’s most useful: Indoors (including in jails and other correctional situations), when the officer can aim at walls and ceilings to release the pepper powder.
Effect on target: Puffy, watery, stinging eyes; runny nose; difficulty breathing; and coughing.
Why it’s appealing: One of the few alternatives that doesn't need to make direct contact with the target — police can shoot it anywhere nearby, and the effect of the capsaicin powder will be the same. However, cops’ training and instincts often cause them to aim for "center mass," says Heal. According to Ijames, the pepperballs "beg a shot to the upper body, because the officer wants to make sure the suspect gets the worst of the pepper."
Potential downsides: The round shape of a pepperball is relatively unstable as it flies through the air, and because of "trajectory degradation," it is not nearly as accurate as a sleek, pointed bullet.
Where it’s used: Most famously used in 1999 during the “Battle of Seattle” anti-WTO riots. In 2004, the Boston Police Department accidentally killed a 21-year-old college student who was celebrating the Red Sox's World Series victory — by firing a pepperball at her eye.

“The Alternative”
An orange metal attachment that an officer can quickly clip onto the barrel of his handgun before firing a shot. The clip-on “catches” the bullet — like an airbag — making it fly about one-fifth as fast.
Approximate cost: $45 per unit.
When it’s most useful: Anytime an officer needs to fire his regular service weapon but does not want the shot to be deadly, and has time to attach this device.
Effect on target: Instead of penetrating and potentially killing the suspect, the slowed-down bullet only knocks him down. “But it might break ribs and it feels like getting hit in the chest with a hammer,” says Ellis, the CEO of the company that manufactures the product.
Why it’s appealing: The Alternative is a compact device that is relatively easy to incorporate into everyday use. The officer can take the clip-on from his belt and attach it to his handgun.
Potential downsides: According to Heal, one “weapons platform” should deliver only one type of force — either lethal or non-lethal. Combining the two on the same gun, he says, is inherently dangerous: What if the officer instinctively “double-taps” (pulls the trigger twice), as most police are trained to do? The result would be the firing of a lethal round right after the non-lethal one has already been discharged.
Where it’s used: A month after the shooting of Michael Brown, the assistant chief of Ferguson's police department took to Google, searching for a less-lethal option for cops. He came up with The Alternative, but after a group of experts sent a letter saying how dangerous they believed the device was, Ferguson has stopped considering it.

“The XREP”
Manufactured until 2012 by TASER International, the XREP is essentially a long-range, wireless version of the traditional TASER, firing plastic shells that each contain sharpened electrodes, a battery, a transmitter, and a microprocessor. When a shell hits the suspect, the electrodes are released and pierce through clothes and skin, releasing up to 50,000 volts of electricity for 20 seconds.
Approximate cost: Over $1,000 for the launcher, $100 per round.
When it’s most useful: For incapacitating people from a distance.
Effect on target: Muscles contract uncontrollably, causing the person to freeze and fall to the ground. And if the person attempts to pull out the electrodes, a circuit is created, spreading the effect.
Why it’s appealing: Like a TASER, the XREP can effectively subdue a person who is suicidal or under the influence of drugs, or otherwise has a high threshold for pain. And unlike a TASER, the XREP can be fired from a distance.
Potential downsides: The XREP’s high cost is its main downside. But, like TASER products, it could be dangerous: According to a 2013 report by Amnesty International, the TASER has caused more than 500 deaths in the United States since 2001.
Where it’s been used: TASER discontinued the XREP back in 2012, because it was expensive and “departments just weren’t buying it,” says TASER spokesperson Steve Tuttle. But several police departments around the country still have the XREP, and few use it occasionally. It was used in March by cops in Albuquerque, N.M., against a mentally-ill person.

“ML-12” Less-Lethal Launcher
A two-shot pistol that shoots most types of less-lethal ammunition (bean bags, pepper rounds, rubber balls, flares, etc.).
When it’s most useful: Close or hand-to-hand confrontations, at traffic stops, in small rooms.
Approximate cost: $549 for the launcher and holster, $4 to $7 per round.
Effect on target: Depends on the type of round.
Why it’s appealing: This is a weapon that the officer can wear on his/her belt and have on hand in any situation.
Potential downsides: It only fires two shots, and two-thirds of use-of-force encounters require an officer to fire more than twice, according to the National Institute of Justice.
Where it’s used: Tommy Teach, the founder of Bruzer Less Lethal International, the company that markets the ML-12, says it has been purchased by over a hundred "small, rural police departments — who prefer it to the TASER because of its lower cost."

“Active Denial System”
Designed by the military, the ADS, also known as the “pain ray,” is shaped like a satellite dish and shoots an invisible, 95 GHz wave of heat at the suspect — similar to the waves inside a microwave.
How it would be used: To stop, deter, and force the retreat of a person who is approaching too aggressively.
Effect on target: Heats the skin to 130° Fahrenheit in under two seconds, causing excruciating, quickly unbearable pain.
Why it’s appealing: The ADS has been thoroughly researched by the Department of Defense, and after 13,000 tests on human subjects, there have been only two serious injuries and no lasting side effects, according to the Pentagon.
Potential downsides: The ADS is very large; the existing model is designed to be mounted on top of a humvee or military-sized vehicle. Police would need a much smaller version with less range but greater portability (and one that doesn’t take half a day to boot up). The ACLU has also called the ADS a torture device.
Status: Available to the military in Afghanistan for deterring individuals who were getting too close to U.S. troops, the ADS was considered for use at the Pitchess Detention Center in Los Angeles County to disrupt assaults and fights. The National Institute of Justice has long considered developing a smaller, handheld version — to be used by law enforcement.



WE FOUND JOHN FAUST UNDER HIS DESK AND ASKED HIM...


what he thought about the Fairfax County police investigation a Fairfax County cop for tasering a man from behind for no reason and even though its on film FINDING THE COP INNOCENT..


Faust said "Please I don't want problems. I just want to go to store opening and cut ribbons and collect a fat check and pretty do nothing and say nothing against police injustice in the county  for another four year"




Fairfax officer free on bond after child porn charges

    THINK ANYONE ELSE WOULD GET A BOND IN A CASE LIKE THIS?
    
    WELL THINK AGAIN, YANKEE 

     YA'LL 'S IN DIXIE NOW SON, WE GOTS OUR WAYS A DO'N THINGS DOWN HERE SON.   



Fairfax County public information officer and school resources officer William "Bud" Walker posted a $10,000 bond Thursday in a child porn case.
The judge set a trial date – Nov. 16 to Nov. 18.

Walker will have no computer use – a special condition of his release requested by prosecutors.

Walker worked for the Fairfax County Police Department for 15 years.


Irony at its best


Elated over investigating another guilty Fairfax County Cop in the taser incident

and once again finding the investigated cop innocent of any wrong doing and with no public official who has the integrity to question their findings and with a press that serves on Police commissions, the Fairfax County Police went on an award giving ceremony today.




















THE LONG, SWEET LOVE AFFAIR BETWEEN COPS AND DOUGHNUTS


BY CARA GIAIMO / 18 SEP 2015
We've got a situation.

It’s a scene procedural writers probably see in their sleep—a burglar (or bank robber, or other ne’er-do-well) slides open a window, grabs the jewels, and high-tails it, leaving screaming alarm sirens in his wake. The dispatcher gets the call and picks up the radio. Who will stop this menace? Cut to: an officer of the law or two, hanging out in the cruiser or posted up on a corner—and munching on doughnuts.

As the New York Times put it in 1996, “no profession is as closely identified with food as police work is with doughnuts.” Amid interviews with real officers, the article cites a Letterman sketch, The Simpsons, and an Ice Cube song as proof. These days, this trope is so stale you’re more likely to see scenes making fun of it—the Law & Order episode in which terrorists leave explosives in a doughnut box, or Wreck-it Ralph’s pastry police officers, Wynchel and Duncan. Even Special Agent Cooper’s glazed-eyed reverence for the treat plays, like everything else in Twin Peaks, a little camp.

But every cliché was born (or fried) for a reason. A cowboy needs a horse, a fireman needs a dalmatian, and a doctor needs a stethoscope. But why does a cop need a doughnut?
  
The common-sense response traces this tradition to the middle of the 20th century, when police departments started switching from foot-based beats to driving ones. Officers working a graveyard shift needed someplace to park the cruiser, fuel up on caffeine and sugar, and maybe fill out some paperwork or make an emergency call. Because doughnut shops had to stay open late to prepare for the morning rush, they fit the bill nicely, explains Michael Krondl in his book The Donut. (As fate would have it, around this same time, two pipin’ fresh chains started sugaring up the night—though they had each started a decade or so earlier, by the late 1950s Krispy Kreme and Dunkin’ Donuts had each sprinkled their half of the country with cop-friendly franchises).

Meanwhile, having officers around made the shop workers feel safe—as early as 1950, one small-time inn owner threatened a larger, litigious hotel chain by boasting, “our High Sheriff and our local troop of state police… help themselves to coffee and doughnuts in my kitchen when the spirit so moves them, which seems about every day.” This foreshadowed a rash of law-enforcement “specials”—enough that a 1964 issue of Police warned its readers, “Do not accept gifts—donuts and coffee. This gives the impression of partiality.” In some small towns, doughnut shops even have desks set aside for policemen who need to work through their breaks. “This symbiotic relationship gave rise to the popular conception of cops being addicted to doughnuts,” writes Zach W. Brown in American Profile.


Many officers have their own personal spin on this tale. There’s the Reno-based patrolman who caffeinated at a casino until the local doughnut shop owner intervened, and the female captain who needed someplace to use the restroom because she couldn’t just unzip and let rip like her colleagues. Beyond the convenient infrastructure, there is the food itself: the sugar, carbohydrates, and fat provide a triple-shot of energy that’s welcome halfway through a long night of patrolling. As former Philadelphia police chief Frank Rizzo recalls, “You got out there, walked around, rolled in the streets with criminals, and burned the calories off.” Doughnuts are ready right away, unlike even 24-hour diner food, and they come in a bunch of varieties (Lou Clark of the Oakland Police Department told Krondl that in the early ‘60s, superiors would play “guess-the-flavor” if cops returned to the station with stains on their shirts). Plus, they’re cheap, “so they can be discarded with little guilt in case of a hot call in the middle of a snack break,” one policeman points out. Add all this up and the appeal is obvious. Some departments even call them "power rings."

Stare harder into the hole, though, and the cop-doughnut relationship isn’t just a marriage of convenience—it’s deeper than that. In fact, we’ve officially stuffed the protecting-and-serving citizens of our country with sugary pastries since at least World War I, when the Salvation Army sent female volunteers to France to cook doughnuts and bring them to the front. The originator of this tradition, a young ensign named Helen Purviance, knelt before a potbelly stove to make the first batch in a frying pan. “There was also a prayer in my heart that somehow this home touch would do more for those who ate the doughnuts than satisfy a physical hunger,” she said later. For a while, U.S. soldiers were actually called “doughboys,” and though they may have originally gotten this nickname some other way, the millions of doughnuts certainly didn’t hurt.

By 1927, American veterans holed up in France were demanding so many breakfast doughnuts that the French had to send for bigger frying kettles. When the Red Cross jumped on the bandwagon during World War II, they churned out so many they started charging for them, a (quickly overturned) decision that has earned them decades of enmity from the armed forces. Though it was solidified in the war, this tradition of doughnuts-as-care goes back even further—in a November 1898 New York Times article about a Thanksgiving party for an NYC regiment, a volunteer cook describes serving “home-made doughnuts” to the hungry soldiers. “No store doughnuts for our troops,” she says.

After the wars ended, the returning soldiers took their taste for doughnuts back with them—and the relief organizations did the same with their taste for giving them away, quickly making them a staple of various disaster-relief efforts, where they filled the stomachs of victims and rescuers alike—including policemen. Somewhere in the modern cop-doughnut partnership, there’s a crumb of this original gesture of care.

In a 2012 interview, theorist Lauren Berlant spoke of how contemporary working life “puts pressure on... small pleasures to sustain our survival.” A doughnut is among the smallest of pleasures, but the sustenance it provides to a working police officer is literal, social and emotional. Unlike their wartime counterparts, police officers don’t have strict front lines—they go where the conflict is—but doughnut shops, identical and always open, provide areas of reliable respite. (When zones do grow more defined, so does this parallel; the center of Boston locked down after the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings, but a few local Dunks stayed open, at police officers’ requests.)

“When we’re in a stakeout with another unit, we bring a dozen doughnuts just to break the ice,” New York City Detective Tom F. Weiner Jr. told the Times. One group of Michigan officers, blue at the prospect of their local bakery closing, pooled their money and bought it. It’s now a 24-hour community hotspot called—what else—Cops & Doughnuts. There you can get cinnamon-twist “Night Shifts” and lemon-filled “Tasers.” In early September, a customer at San Francisco’s Happy Donuts caught two police officers sitting at a table and joking about police shootings—proof that the sense of camaraderie in a doughnut shop can glaze over common sense. Even police who eschew doughnuts talk about the choice in terms of their responsibilities, both to themselves and others. Doughnuts are a headline-punchline in ubiquitous articles about police fitness, often atop stories like this one, in which officers talk to each other about how they overeat when agitated by their jobs. If you can’t bring the box of doughnuts, stories about how you wanted to eat the whole thing will suffice.
Protesters dangling donuts in front of riot cops in Montreal. 

To those who already distrust law enforcement, pointing out the doughnut connection is a way to smear frosting on the face of the powerful. Protesters have been known to dangle doughnuts on fishing rods in front of riot police, and there’s a Reddit group dedicated to “law enforcement abuse stories” called “Bad Cop No Donut.”

The doughnut may be a one-sided shape, but it’s a many-sided rhetorical weapon. No longer content to merely get their just desserts, police are using doughnuts to give back, too—to show that they understand that in the contemporary world, the protectors sometimes need to prove themselves. These days, cops brandish doughnuts to poke holes in their own mythos and bond with their communities, often simultaneously. They climb pink Dunkin’ Donuts roofs for charity, send patrol horses through the drive-thru, or make sure they’re the first people at the debut of a new shop. Sometimes, the jokes have local flavor—after Oregon legalized marijuana, the Portland Police released a chart comparing different weed amounts to the size of a popular regional doughnut. (If you’re carrying more than one doughnut’s worth, you’re over the limit). The website Police Daily collects photos of cops chowing down, often with big, self-aware smiles.

“One thinks of policing as a sort of disciplinary, paternal, stern and potentially violent occupation, and doughnuts are fluffy [and] sweet” wrote historian Jim Paradis in an email. “The contrast… makes some effort to humanize the cops, who greatly need humanizing.” The cops are aware of this: Corporal Mark Ivey, who starred in a Wilmington, Pennsylvania Police Department video called “Cops & Donuts: An Explainer,” defended the decision by calling it “a creative way to strengthen the department’s relationship with the community.” “By showing that you can poke fun at yourself, that you can laugh at yourself and that you are just an everyday citizen going out there and doing a difficult job and that you need their help, that's how you can solve this problem," of strained relationships, Ivey said.
That’s a lot of weight for a squishy pastry—even one with the strength of history—but anecdotal evidence reveals cops are upping their dosage. When asked whether police ever visit the store, an employee of Union Square Donuts in Somerville, Massachusetts affirmed. “One came in this morning,” she said. “He got a whole box.”










It’s extremely difficult to prosecute cops for bad shootings. But they can still be fired.



By Jonathan Blanks September 17

Note: This is a guest post from Jonathan Blanks, a research associate at the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice and managing editor ofPoliceMisconduct.net. Follow him on Twitter at @blanksslate.

As The Washington Post has documented, few police officers are ever arrested, let alone prosecuted or convicted, after officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths. Although there have been several recent high-profile cases in which officers have been charged with crimes for shootings in the line of duty — most recently in Baltimore and Fairfax County, Virginia — the number of officers arrested is likely to remain negligible. Supreme Court precedent and certain aspects of police culture and internal discipline combine to protect officers in use-of-force cases that can preclude criminal investigation and arrest.
All of this supports police officers who are involved in justified shootings. But it also makes it difficult to impossible to convict officers of bad shootings. And because of the protections afforded to public employees in general, and to police officers especially, it often requires a criminal conviction to remove an officer from the job. Consequently, bad cops are notoriously difficult to fire. Consequently, we often see a small percentage of officers account for a huge percentage of many policy agencies’ shootings and brutality complaints.
Three principle Supreme Court decisions have essentially laid out the lethal force standard for police officers in the United States. But in those decisions, the court also inadvertently created a blueprint for officers to duck accountability. In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court said that any seizure of an individual — including the use of force — must fall under the “objectively reasonable” standard: Would an average police officer in the same position view the officer’s actions as reasonable given all the information at the officer’s disposal? Put another way, if the circumstances led an officer to reasonably believe the suspect was armed and threatening, the officer would be deemed justified in using lethal force, even if the person turned out to be unarmed.
Graham ties closely to another ruling just a few years before, Tennessee v. Garner (1985). In that case, a police officer fatally shot an unarmed burglar as he was fleeing the scene. The Court said that because the burglar, Edward Garner, posed no direct threat to the officers, nor did they have reason to believe he was a threat to the public, the police were not justified in shooting him simply to prevent escape.
The last case, often overlooked, is Garrity v. New Jersey (1967). It looks at how police agencies investigate their own. Since law enforcement agencies are often responsible for their own personnel oversight, police departments may compel officers to give statements about an incident in order to determine whether or not there was any misconduct. However, under Garrity, any compelled statements that would otherwise incriminate the officer may not be admitted in criminal proceedings, due to the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. As a result, police officers are granted many procedural protections before questioning in shooting incidents. Some of these protections have extended Garrity and been codified in what have become known colloquially as “Law Enforcement Officers’ Bills of Rights” (LEOBR).
LEOBR vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction where they exist, but generally they provide a litany of privileges to officers that aren’t afforded to non-law enforcement suspects. For example, there may be mandatory “cooling off” periods after a shooting, guaranteeing the officer anywhere from 48 hours to 10 days before being initially questioned about his version of events. (Sometimes, officers go longer than that without being questioned.) Indeed, some of the emerging body camera policy proposals, such as one considered in Los Angeles, would give officers the opportunity to review the video evidence before giving a statement, a privilege rarely afforded to citizens who aren’t police officers.
Maryland was the first state to institute LEOBR and held hearings last month in which 15 LEOBR proponents—police union representatives and leadership—testified in support the law. The police unions denied that officers would or have ever used the cooling-off periods to concoct a false story and collude with other officers to cover up misdeeds.
Even in areas where LEOBRs are not present, there is evidence that officers indeed collude with one another to create false narratives about violent encounters with suspects.
University of Cincinnati officer Ray Tensing reported that he was being dragged by a car he pulled over for a missing tag when he fired his weapon point-blank into the face of Samuel DuBose. His body-worn camera ended up undermining his story. But Tensing’s report — that he felt he was in imminent danger, and thus in line with the Supreme Court standard — was initially corroborated by fellow officers on the scene. The internal policing cultural demand known as the “Blue Wall of Silence” very often puts loyalty over honesty and personal integrity, particularly when it comes to misconduct investigations. Without video, it is unlikely Tensing would have been criminally prosecuted and, very possibly, would still be on the job today.
Likewise, the initial reports in the shooting death of Tamir Rice were unsupported by surveillance video. The footage showed the officer, Timothy Loehmann, jumped out of the patrol car and shoot the 12-year-old almost instantly. The more experienced officer who was driving the car, Frank Garmback, was not cooperative with the county prosecutor’s investigation, according to the 224-page prosecutor’s report.
Of course, not all officers comply with the Blue Wall’s demand for silence. Fairfax County, Virginia officer Adam Torres’s shooting of John Geer in 2013 was not caught on camera. Furthermore, every officer and supervisor on the scene effectively described the incident as a ‘bad shoot,’ despite Torres’s claims that Geer had “brought both his hands down in a quick motion towards his waist.” Torres’s claim is a variant of an oft-repeated explanation for officer-involved shootings that a suspect ‘reached for his waistband.’ Why it took two years to fire and indict Torres has yet to be disclosed by the Fairfax County police and prosecutor, but his indictment shows that the Blue Wall is at least not completely impregnable.
The recent charging of Baltimore police officer Wesley Cagle for shooting a burglar in December 2014 indicates that some prosecutors are becoming more skeptical of police narratives after use-of-force incidents. The facts of the Baltimore shooting are not yet clear. But prosecutor Marilyn Mosby says Cagle shot Michael Johansen in the groin after he made light of being shot for being non-compliant. Johansen survived, and Cagle is facing five criminal counts, including attempted first-degree murder.
Mosby determined that the other two officers’ initial shooting of Johansen was justified, even though he was unarmed.  Cagle’s actions were not justifiable because Johansen was on the ground and incapable of being an imminent threat. Again, it is unclear why eight months passed between the incident and Cagle’s indictment.
Sift through The Post’s database of people killed by police officers in 2015, and you’ll begin to notice a pattern: Most of those were armed and pointed or otherwise approached police with a weapon drawn and ready to use. Undoubtedly, the accounts are true in many instances. And it is unfair to suggest that officers usually create a story that would justify an otherwise “bad shoot,” but it is unlikely that they’re all entirely accurate.
But even if every single account is true, the “objectively reasonable” standard provides legal cover for shootings that can be plausibly justified under the law, but may not have been necessary. Given the sheer number of killings recorded (686 to date in 2015), and that more than 15 percent of those killed were unarmed (65) or had a toy weapon (23), non-lethal methods of resolution or de-escalation could have saved at least 88 lives.
Officers have a dangerous job and sometimes have reason to fear for their safety. In 2015, 84 officers have died in the line of duty, according to the Officers Down Memorial Page.  Of those, 28 have died by non-accidental gunfire or non-vehicular assault. The police have the right to protect themselves, but they are also expected to assume a certain amount of risk in order to protect the public. As several former officers and trainers wrote on a popular police website, there is no officer safety exception to the Constitution. As such, the mere possibility of danger should not precipitate a “shoot first, ask questions later” police mindset on the streets. And yet it has.
Because we ask police officers to put themselves in harm’s way, they should get some leeway for split-second reactions in situations they perceived to be dangerous. Sometimes those reactions will be wrong, and innocent people will die because of an honest error in judgment that does not necessarily warrant prison time. However, in those circumstances, public safety demands that officers who make those sorts of mistakes even once be removed from the force and from policing. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that if you kill an innocent person, we aren’t going to wait to see if you do it a second or third time. The public shouldn’t have to absorb that risk. And of course, officers who display gross negligence or malice should be prosecuted.
Unfortunately, use-of-force jurisprudence allows police officers to use lethal force at the first instant a suspect flinches or moves in any way that could be construed (or recounted) as hostile. The Blue Wall of Silence then encourages police to support their colleagues’ accounts of events, even when they result in the unnecessary death of an innocent. Laws and policies that protect police leave the door open for less-than-forthright accounts of confrontations that more often than not end in the police officer’s favor.
Changing the constitutional standard for use of force would be difficult. The Supreme Court doesn’t generally rewrite its rules on such issues, and it is very unlikely Congress would pass a law to increase police officers’ criminal liability.
Although local officials can’t change what’s legal, they can change what’s permitted as a matter of policy. Mayors, city councils, and other policymakers can instruct police agencies to change their rules guiding use of force to require more emphasis and training for deescalation and peaceful conflict resolution.
Police contracts can be negotiated to make it easier to terminate officers who shoot too quickly, even if those contracts retain the same protections against criminal prosecution. Termination should result for any officers named in lawsuits that municipalities settle or lose in excessive force and wrongful death cases. At minimum, such settlements should trigger administrative reviews of the officers named and those cases should be noted in their personnel files.
The available data indicate that current laws and policies make police-involved shootings too common, leaving many families shattered and the general public less safe. Absent radical legal change at the federal level, police departments and local governments can still take steps to reduce the number of police shootings and remove the officers responsible for unnecessary use of force from their ranks.
Whether or not a shooting is legal is a separate question than whether it was right. We need to change use-of-force policies to reflect that.


Jonathan Blanks is a research associate at the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice and managing editor of PoliceMisconduct.net.

Va. Protesters Demand Changes Following Death of Mentally Ill Woman in Police Custody ________________________________________




by: Linda Poulson Special to the AFRO
Virginia residents recently confronted local leaders over the ruling that the death of a mentally ill Black woman in northern Virginia was an accident.
Protestors on Sept. 14 questioned the accountability of the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office at an Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Commission panel held at Walt Whitman Middle School in Alexandria, Va.
The residents were inflamed by the ruling that the death while in police custody of 37-year-old Natasha McKenna, who suffered from schizophrenia, was an accident. A video of the incident was released months after her death, showing apparent rough treatment and multiple uses of a tazer device as McKenna was transferred from one cell at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center to another.
“Her death was murder but ruled an accident, as if it never happened,” said one protester. “That is a problem for me, as a Black woman, in this country because Natasha McKenna is me; and to say that her death is an accident is a move that you just learn from, I have a problem with that. When you have a problem with something especially that stems from systems of oppression, I dismantle that s**t.”
The packed audience included protesters from the Black Lives Matter campaign and other residents who believed immediate changes in police procedures were needed.
“I’ve never seen a level of distrust and disrespect for the police, it’s just really troubling,” said a resident. “We’ve come up with a list of recommendations that really make sense and why in the hell didn’t we implement these years ago?” The speaker referred to a list of proposals for improvements in police action, given to the panel in 2004.
“More people of color, you need to include the homeless and their organizations, and all other marginalized people to be included in these commissions and committees,” said another resident. “Otherwise, you’re wasting our time and the taxpayer’s money.”
Another resident raised questions on the procedures police used while handling McKenna. At the time of her death, she was awaiting transportation to Alexandria, Va. where she was wanted for assaulting an officer.
“Why was she tazed four times? Why were her hands and feet bound?” the resident said. “People all over the world,  Europe, Asia,  the Caribbean, Africa; have seen this horrific video showing a mentally ill young Black woman treated in such a brutal manner. These same people ask me is the United States really that violent?”
The Washington Post reported that McKenna only weighed 130 pounds at the time of her death. According to McKenna’s family attorney, Harvey J. Volzer, she was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 12 and struggled with the disease throughout her life. The AFRO attempted to contact Mr. Volzer several times with no response.
One protester stated the video “looked liked a rape and an electrocution at the same time,” as McKenna was naked when guards threw her to the ground. “Where were the women guards?” the protester asked.
Heard on the video, Natasha McKenna’s last words as she was taken from her jail cell were “You promised you wouldn’t kill me.” Several protestors at the rally said the promise was never intended to be kept.



Demonstrators Appear at Hearing After Inmate Death
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Demonstrators appeared at a hearing on police practices to call for reforms, days after Fairfax County prosecutors announced the decision not to charge deputies in an inmate’s death.
Before the Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Commission met Monday night in Alexandria, dozens of people stood outside. Some held signs reading “Justice for Natasha McKenna” and “Film the Police.” The commission is focused on county police, not the sheriff’s department, which manages the jail. Still, several people spoke out at the hearing about the death of McKenna several days after a struggle with deputies.
The commission heard a report from a subcommittee focused on use of force, which is making about 40 recommendations, including asking patrol officers to wear body cameras. The commission is set to meet again Oct. 8.




Demonstrators call for change at public hearing on Fairfax police practices

By Michelle Basch |
Many demonstrators brought their signs into the hearing, held by the Ad Hoc Police Practices Review Commission.
WASHINGTON — Mentally ill Fairfax County Jail inmateNatasha McKenna died a few days after jail deputies shocked her repeatedly with a Taser in February.
Last week’s decision to not file criminal charges in connection with her death, as well as to release disturbing video of what led up to it, prompted protesters to show up at a public hearing on Monday night.
Before the meeting started at Walt Whitman Middle School in Alexandria, a few dozen people stood outside holding signs that read “Justice for Natasha McKenna,” “Film the Police” and “Instead of help + treatment, they gave her abuse + death.”
Although the commission is focused on the Fairfax County Police Department and not the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Department, which manages the county jail, numerous people signed up to speak out about McKenna’s death.
“We demand justice for Natasha and for those like her in the detention facility today,” Cayce Utley said.
“This woman was having a psychotic episode. She didn’t know what was happening to her. She had men in white suits groping at her naked body,” said Erika Totten, with Black Lives Matter.
“It was a cruel reminder of how African slaves were treated once upon a time,” said Asantewaa Nkrumah-Ture.
Other speakers called for the prosecutor and the deputies involved in the case to be fired.
Well into the hearing, one of the members of the commission, Sal Culosi, stood to speak to the audience.
“You need to know that my son … was killed by (the) Fairfax County Police Department in 2006. They said it was an accident. We’re not going to go into that, but I’m here trying to make the policies better. By and large I agree with everything that’s been said here by all of you with regard to Natasha except for one thing. One thing. This is not a racial issue.”
That led to “boos” from several in the crowd.
Culosi continued, “The officer who killed my son was black. And that has nothing to do with the issue of policy.”
At the same meeting, the commission heard a report from its Use of Force Subcommittee, which is making about 40 recommendations for change. They include asking police patrol officers to wear body cameras and carry Electronic Controlled weapons, such as Tasers, while on duty. The subcommittee also supports a ban on chokeholds as a way of controlling suspects.
The commission is scheduled to meet again on Oct. 8 to vote on recommendations submitted by all five of its subcommittees.

Follow @WTOP on Twitter and WTOP on Facebook.