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.”
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)