Bear fight!

Former East Carroll Parish Sheriff Sentenced to Three Years’ Probation

U.S. Attorney’s Office July 07, 2014        •           Western District of Louisiana (318) 676-3641

MONROE, LA—The former sheriff of East Carroll Parish was sentenced to three years of probation for hunting with a convicted felon who was sentenced prior to 2014 and barred from possessing a firearm, U.S. Attorney Stephanie A. Finley announced today.

Former East Carroll Parish Sheriff Mark Wayne Shumate, 52, of Lake Providence, La., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Robert G. James for one count aiding and abetting a felon in the possession of a firearm. According to evidence presented at the guilty plea, on April 1, 2014, Shumate and the convicted felon went hunting on January 8, 2014. Shumate had full knowledge that the person accompanying him was barred from possessing and firing a firearm.

The FBI and ATF conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph G. Jarzabek prosecuted the case.

Baltimore School Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Drug Trafficking Conspiracy

U.S. Attorney’s Office July 07, 2014        •           District of Maryland (410) 209-4800

BALTIMORE, MD—Napoleon McLain, Jr., age 31, of Randallstown, Maryland pleaded guilty today to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base.

The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein and Special Agent in Charge Stephen E. Vogt of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to his plea agreement, McLain is an officer with the Baltimore City School Police Force (BCSPF). BCSPF officers are granted police privileges to carry firearms and conduct arrests within the City of Baltimore.

From no later than December 2012 to August 2013, while he was employed as a BCSPF officer, McLain was a member of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. McLain bought multiple ounces of cocaine base at a time from his suppliers, which he sold to others. On four occasions between December 2012 and August 2013, McLain sold a total of approximately 150 grams of cocaine base to a confidential source for $9,800.

McLain faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison. U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake scheduled sentencing for October 15, 2014 at 9:15 a.m.

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein praised the FBI for its work in the investigation and thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney David I. Sharfstein, who is prosecuting the case.

Cop charged with child abuse

                 

Jeremy Yachik, the fired Berthoud police officer who pleaded guilty to one count of child abuse for abusing a 15-year-old girl, was sentenced Monday to 30 days in a jail work-release program and three years of probation.

Yachik also will perform 80 hours of community service and undergo a domestic violence evaluation.

Yachik was fired after he allegedly admitted to abusing a 15-year-old girl, and the case led to the resignation of the police chief.

According to an arrest affidavit, Yachik abused the victim almost daily for years, including tying her up with handcuffs or plastic zip ties and slamming her head into a wall.

The victim also told police Yachik beat her with ropes, restricted her food and locked her in a dark room for hours.

KKK

Fruitland Park, Florida:  Two police officers are no longer with the city department here after a law enforcement report tied them to the Ku Klux Klan, an official said Monday. Deputy Chief David Borst resigned and Officer George Hunnewell was fired last week, City Manager Gary La Venia said.

Top Ten Reasons Why You Should Not Talk to the Police

REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT help you.

If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you.If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to arrest, they will. If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested.This is completely contrary to popular belief. For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt. 

REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police.

People plead guilty in America every day. Probably over 90% of defendants in state court plead guilty at some point during their case. There is plenty of time to confess and admit guilt at a later stage of the proceedings. What’s the rush? Get a lawyer first. Let the lawyer set up a deal whereby you get something in exchange for accepting responsibility for the offense. A better plea bargain, or maybe even immunity. If you confess to the police, you get nothing in return. Zero. In fact, you probably get a harsher prosecution because the state’s case is now airtight, now that you have confessed.

REASON #3: Even if you are innocent, it’s easy to tell some little white lie in the course of a statement.

This kind of thing happens all the time. A person who is completely innocent and who is trying to vehemently assert their innocence will go overboard and take it a little bit too far and deny some insignificant fact, tell some little white lie, because they want to sound as innocent as possible. But if the police have evidence of that lie, it makes your entire statement look like a lie. The prosecutor will ask: “Why did he lie to the police? Why indeed would he lie to the police, unless he were guilty?”

That little white lie could be used to destroy your credibility at trial.

An example would be a man who is questioned about a murder. He wants to sound innocent. He wants to sound non-violent. He is, in fact, innocent. So he denies everything. He denies the killing. He denies being in the area where the killing occurred on the night that it occurred. He denies owning a gun, and denies that he has ever owned a gun in his whole life. But it Turns out that this last statement is not true, And the police can prove it. He did at one time during his life own a gun. Now he has told a lie and the police have caught him and things will only go downhill from there. Although he is innocent of the murder, he has told a lie that will be used to destroy his credibility at trial and could be the cause of his conviction.

REASON #4: Even if you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, it is possible to give the police some detail of information that can be used to convict you.

For example, a suspect is being questioned about a murder. He is truly innocent of the murder. But in the course of explaining his innocence, he makes the statement that he never liked the victim, because the victim was not a nice guy. A statement like that could be used to prove motive.

Or in the course of the statement, the suspect might admit that he was in the area of town where the murder was committed at the time it was committed. Although he’s innocent and although this statement is true, the prosecutor could use that statement to suggest that the suspect had the opportunity to commit the crime, which looks very bad in front of a jury.

REASON #5: Even if you were innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, and you don’t give the police any information that can be used against you to prove motive or opportunity, you still should not talk to the police because the possibility that the police might not recall your statement with 100% accuracy.

What if the police officer remembers something wrong? What if he remembers you said “X” when actually you said “Y”? If the police officer takes the witness stand and contradicts your statements at trial, it will kill your credibility. You can take the witness stand and say “I never said that!” But it’s your word versus a police officer. Who’s the jury going to believe? Who will the jury assume is lying to save his own skin? Who will the jury believe is lying because he’s really guilty? You guessed it. YOU!

REASON #6: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth, and your entire statement is videotaped so that the police don’t have to rely on their memory, an innocent person can still make some innocent assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.

Example: Suppose a police officer is questioning A suspect about a homicide. And the suspect makes the statement “I don’t know who killed the victim. I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I don’t even like guns.” On it’s face, there’s nothing incriminating about that statement. But suppose at trial, the prosecutor asks the police officer if anything about that statement surprised him. The police officer answers “Yes, it surprised me when the suspect mentioned a gun, because I had never mentioned a gun before that. I merely told him that I was investigating a homicide.”

When the officer said there has been a homicide, the suspect may have simply assumed that the killing was done with a gun. Or the suspect may have overheard in the police station some other officer talk about the fact that it was a shooting. But if the officer taking the statement had never mentioned a gun or a shooting, and the suspect makes the statement that he had never owned a gun, you give the prosecution the opportunity to create some high drama, suggesting that suspect has had a Freudian slip, and has made a statement about a gun because he is, in fact, the murderer. And as the murderer, he knew that a gun was used.

REASON #7: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth in your statement, and you give the police no information that can be used against you, and the whole statement is videotaped, a suspect’s answers can still be used against him if the police (through no fault of their own) have any evidence that any of the suspect’s statements are false (even if they are really true).

Suppose the police have a statement from a witness who claims to have seen the suspect in the area where the crime was committed at the time of the incident. Suppose further that this witness is actually wrong, but has made an honest mistake. The suspect then gives a statement to the police in which he says he was nowhere near the area where the crime took place at the time of the incident. By giving the statement, the suspect has now created a conflict between his own statement and the statement of this witness. By itself, the statement of the witness that he or she saw the suspect in the area at the time the crime was committed is not that useful. But by giving this statement, and creating a conflict with this witness’s statement, the suspect has now made this relatively minor witness into the government’s star witness.

The jury will hear the conflict and will assume that the suspect is lying and wonder why.

So even if you tell the complete truth, you’re putting your cards on the table without first seeing what evidence the government has. And if the government has some bit of evidence which, through some honest mistake, contradicts part of your story, you set yourself up to be portrayed as a liar by giving a statement without first knowing what evidence the government has.

REASON #8: The police do not have authority to make deals or grant a suspect leniency in exchange for getting as statement.

People tell me all the time that they gave a statement to the police because the police told them that they would be better off if they confessed, better off if they admitted what they did wrong, better off if they cooperated. The police will make vague statements that things will go easier on the suspect if he simply admits what he did wrong. The police will also make vague statements suggesting that they will do what they can to help the suspect, that they will put in a good word for the suspect, if the suspect will just come clean.

Number One thing to remember: The police do not have authority to make deals, grant immunity, or negotiate plea agreements. The only entity with that authority is the District Attorney in state court and the U.S. Attorney in federal court. Despite their claim that they are trying to help you, the only help police are providing when they take your statement is giving you rope with which to hang yourself.

REASON #9: Even if a suspect is guilty, and wants to confess, there may be mitigating factors which justify a lesser charge.

Mitigating factors are rarely brought out by the police in an interview. Normally, police want to focus on the facts that will suggest the suspect has committed the most severe crime possible. In fact, the suspect may have committed a lesser grade of offense. And if given the opportunity to talk to an attorney first, the attorney may be able to explain to the suspect what facts are important in establishing that he is guilty of a lesser grade of an offense, and not a higher grade. A confession presented in this context to the District Attorney’s office might result in a lesser charge and a more appropriate and fair penalty.

REASON #10: Even for a completely honest and innocent person, it is difficult to tell the same story twice in exactly the same way.

If you tell your story one time at trial and you tell the truth and you’re innocent, there’s very little the prosecutor can do by way of cross examination. But if you’ve told your story twice, once at trial, and once previously in a statement to the police, many months apart, the chances are very high that, even if you are telling the truth, some little details in your statement are going to change.

A good cross examiner will pick up on these changes and will relentlessly question you about them in an effort to make it look like you are lying.

So for all these reasons, whether you are guilty or innocent, whether you want to confess or want to exonerate yourself, whether you’re poorly educated or the most eloquent speaker in the world, you should NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances, give a statement to the police when you have been detained as a suspect.

Note: Credit for some of the Top Ten Reasons goes to Professor Dwayne at Regent University Law School.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/top-ten-reasons-talk-police/#Ch05hqmZPdxcMtoy.99

Eat em up

We thought she had a gun

Woman falsely arrested for DUI files federal lawsuit

by Chris Patterson

MILWAUKEE -- A woman is filing a federal lawsuit after a Milwaukee County Sheriff's deputy allegedly arrested her for drunk driving to cover up his fault in a car accident.

According to federal documents, Tanya Weyker was traveling south on Howell Ave. when Deputy Joseph Quiles drove through a stop sign resulting in an accident. Weyker's car spun out of control, and struck a tree in a median barrier.

The lawsuit filed in federal court claims three other Milwaukee County Sheriff's deputies, Scott Griffin, Byron Terry, and Sergeant Matthew Paradise, responded to this accident the night of February 20, 2013. The lawsuit alleges all officers conspired to cover up Quiles' role in the accident by having Weyker falsely arrested for driving while intoxicated.

The federal lawsuit says Griffin, Terry and Paradise failed to intervene or prevent Weyker's arrest. The lawsuit also says they all willfully "ignored or disregarded" evidence indicating Quiles was at fault for this accident. Attorneys say all responding deputies filed false and inaccurate information saying Weyker was driving drunk.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is also mentioned in this lawsuit. It says Sheriff Clarke became aware of the video that proved Quiles was at fault in the February 20th accident. The video was made available to Sheriff Clarke within one week of the incident.

The Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office declined to issue any charges against Weyker after blood tests showed she was completely sober. Assistant DA Ron Dauge noted, "A MCSO squad t-bones the driver's car as she is heading south on Howell Avenue. The squad failed to stop/yield to an auto in the active traffic lane. Although the defendant admits that she was driving 45 in a 35 (mph) zone, that speed isn't excessive, just a violation of the speed limit. Defendant was cooperative with police and consented to blood test. Blood test shows no alcohol, no drugs at all. So no evidence of impairment. Ticket was also written for 'imprudent speed.' 45 in 35 might be in excess of posted limit, but doesn't appear to be "imprudent." Further, driver's car suffered significant damage, both driver and passenger suffered injuries and were admitted into Froedtert as a consequence of the collision."

Former police officer charged with DUI makes initial court appearance

Written by Kevin Robison

CEDAR CITY – Jed Prisbrey Imlay, 32, appeared for his initial hearing at the 5th District Court in Cedar City on Tuesday. Imlay resigned from the Cedar City Police Department June 16 after being charged with driving under the influence while off duty – allegedly with a child in the vehicle – and leaving the scene of an accident after crashing in the parking lot of a little league baseball complex.

Imlay entered not guilty pleas through his attorney, Douglas Terry, to charges of driving under the influence of alcohol with a minor in the vehicle, a class-A misdemeanor, and leaving the scene of an accident that involved property damage, a class-B misdemeanor.

Prosecution is being handled by the Beaver County Attorney’s Office in order to avoid a conflict of interest with Iron County.

A review hearing is set for Aug. 12 at 9 a.m.

Persons arrested or charged are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law or as otherwise decided by a trier-of-fact.

Former Isle of Palms cop charged with pawning evidence

By RACHAEL MYERS LOWE

CHARLESTON, SC — A former Isle of Palms police officer was arrested Tuesday and charged with misconduct in office and breach of trust, the State Law Enforcement Division announced in a news release.

Dawn Caldwell, 45, worked in the evidence room at the Isle Of Palms Police Department. Between 2009 and 2013, the SLED warrant charges, Capt. Caldwell took items from the evidence room worth more than $2,000 and pawned them at a local pawn shop. She was also charged with pawning her department issued Glock pistol on two occasions.

The SC Law Enforcement Division investigated the case at the request of the Isle of Palms Police Department.

Caldwell was being held at the Charleston County Detention Center on Tuesday.

Ex-cop tied to suitcase deaths suspended 3 times

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - Newly released records show that a former Wisconsin police officer charged with dumping two bodies stuffed into suitcases along a highway had a lengthy disciplinary record, including three suspensions and four reprimands.

Fifty-two-year-old Steven Zelich is charged with two counts of hiding a corpse in Walworth County. Authorities say he's also a suspect in the women's deaths, although no homicide charges have been filed.

Zelich worked for the West Allis Police Department from February 1989 until he resigned in August 2001.

Records obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press show he was suspended twice in 2001 for lying - for 20 days in May and two days in April.

He also received a one-day suspension in 1996 for failing to report an accident in which he was involved while on duty.

Highway workers discovered two suitcases containing female remains June 5 in the Town of Geneva, some 50 miles southwest of Milwaukee. Police identified one woman as Laura Simonson, 37, of Farmington, Minnesota. The second woman was identified through dental records as Jenny Gamez from Cottage Grove, Oregon.

Why Cops Get Away With Rape

By Paula Mejia

Truthout revealed last week that there is no organization keeping good data on sexual violence perpetrated by police. Universities are being pressured by students, alumni and human rights groups for more transparency regarding sexual assault cases on campuses, but sexual misconduct committed by on-duty police officers goes vastly underreported. Truthout also says that when police-perpetrated sexual violence is reported, shorter sentences or dismissed cases are more common.

Cases of police-perpetrated molestation, harassment sexual assault, rape and molestation have been all over the headlines recently. A former Washington, D.C., officer admitted that he forced teenagers to work as escorts out of his apartment, while a former Wisconsin police officer was arrested for murdering two women and stuffing them into suitcases. An officer in Texas was arrested on domestic violence charges and was recorded saying that his wife would benefit from being “cut by a razor, set on fire, beat half to death and left to die.” A former Georgia officer was sentenced to 35 years on child molestation charges after he forced himself on two girls and a woman while on duty.

Jennifer Marsh, vice president of victims services at the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, told Truthout that her organization receives multiple reports of police-perpetrated sexual crimes each month via its anonymous hotline. Marsh is unsure how many of these cases result in an arrest, and how many times charges are dismissed because the officer’s word is taken over the victim’s, partly because of the power dynamics in such situations and partly because of how the rapists select their targets.

 “[Officers] tend to choose victims who would lack so-called credibility in the eyes of other law enforcement, whether it was somebody who was engaged in sex work or whether it is somebody who was intoxicated or who was using drugs, and then they use that justification for why that person cannot be believed,” Marsh said.

“Unfortunately, this is more the norm than the exception,” she continues. “It’s hard to do research and find reliable statistics on a topic that nobody wants to speak about.” An unofficial study by the Cato Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project found that sexual misconduct is the second greatest of all civilian complaints nationwide against police officers, at 9.3 percent in 2010. The organization noted that 354 of the 618 officers under investigation for sexual offenses were accused of engaging in nonconsensual sexual acts, and just over half of the 354 cases involved minors.

Within the criminal justice system, sex offenders are difficult to prosecute, but officers accused of sexual crimes are even tougher to convict. According to a U.S. Department of Justice survey, 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, only 3 percent of rapists will serve time in prison, and the numbers for cops are nonexistent. The study notes that these cops are typically unsupervised and, if arrested, often have to recount the crime to, well, other cops. The truth is that little accountability exists for law enforcement officials.

Consider the case of Nicole Smith. In a report, she describes in graphic detail the horrible violence she endured when a police officer raped her over 20 years ago. “He just started beating the shit out of me, and he had a gun,” she said. “I remember him telling me, ‘You’re never going home’.... I could feel the gun on my face.” The officer was off duty when the rape happened (the two were briefly dating at the time). But a study conducted by Bowling Green State University finds that more than half of reported police-perpetrated rapes between 2005 and 2007 occurred when an officer was on duty.

Smith isn’t sure if she would have talked to the police at all had a friend not taken her to the hospital after the attack. “My paranoia was beyond belief when I was talking to the police,” she said. When Smith pressed charges, the officer was already standing trial on charges of raping and assaulting another woman. That case was dropped, and Smith’s case ended in a plea bargain for a life sentence. Smith’s rapist was deemed eligible for parole after an initial five years, then again every three years, although she said he has a good chance of getting out as early as September 2015 due to recent changes in the state’s parole board operations.

The Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women funded an initiative by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to develop policies and training standards to prevent police-perpetrated sexual misconduct. The American Prospect reports, however, that the organization fails to track progress within its local departments. In 2000, the Department of Justice and the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training unveiled the National Decertification Index, a database compiled to prevent decertified officers from becoming rehired due to misconduct. The most recent version of the index contains reports from only 37 states.

Spokane International Airport police officer accused of child rape

SPOKANE, Wash. -- The Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office is pursing incest and child rape charges against an Airport Police officer.

Spokane Airports released a statement Wednesday. It said the officer had been suspended without pay pending the outcome of an investigation.    

Airport officials said the part-time reserve commissioned Airport Police officer, had been employed since 2002.

KREM 2 News has not released the suspect’s name in order to protect the identity of the victim. 

Wife had accused killer policeman of rape

By Jenny Johnson, Salt Lake City

A Utah police officer who killed his wife, their two children, his mother-in-law and then himself received text messages from his wife just hours earlier threatening to leave him and take their children and confronting him for raping her, documents show.

A Spanish Fork Police report shows Joshua Boren and his wife exchanged heated texts the night and morning before the January killings.

In them, Kelly Boren confronted her husband about raping her and told him their marriage was over. The couple had been separated.

Joshua Boren’s therapist told authorities that Boren drugged his wife and videotaped himself sexually assaulting her on more than one occasion.

Kelly Boren learned of the assaults when she discovered the tapes in 2013, said Spanish Fork Police Lt. Matt Johnson. She did not report the assaults to police because she didn’t want to ruin her husband’s career, the report says.

The night before she was killed, Kelly Boren brought up the alleged sexual assault again, texting the word “rape” to her husband four times, the documents show.

The next morning, Kelly Boren told her husband she would take the children, prompting Joshua Boren to reply by text: “Don’t involve the kids, they are innocent.”

Joshua Boren had worked for the Lindon Police Department for only three months. Before that, he was a Utah County sheriff’s deputy for seven years. He used the service weapon when he killed his family members and himself, authorities said. Toxicology reports show he had no drugs or alcohol in his system.

Police said the state medical examiner confirmed what investigators believed: Joshua Boren shot his wife Kelly Boren, 32, his 55-year-old mother-in-law, Marie King; and his two children, 7-year-old Joshua “Jaden” and 5-year-old Haley, before killing himself.

The shooting happened at the family’s home in Spanish Fork, a city of about 37,000 located 80km south of Salt Lake City. 

NYC officer pleads not guilty in suburban shooting

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — A New York City policeman has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted murder, assault and drunken driving.

Suspended Officer Brendan Cronin is accused in connection with the apparently random shooting attack on two men in a car at a suburban intersection on April 29. Cronin was off-duty.

The passenger in the car was hit six times. The driver, who was not hit, was at Thursday's arraignment.

He said he wanted Cronin to see his face. He said Cronin saw only the back of his head during the shooting.

A judge signed orders of protection demanding that Cronin stay away from the two men. They have served notice that they plan to sue Cronin and New York City.

Cronin and his lawyer left the courthouse without commenting.

Cop posed as tipster, then busted New Brunswick journalist

By Brian Amaral | NJ.com 

NEW BRUNSWICK – Charlie Kratovil thought he was going to get a scoop about the Police Department.

Instead, the New Brunswick journalist got arrested.

Kratovil, who is the editor of New Brunswick Today, released an audio recording of what he says transpired Tuesday night, after he was accused of violating a temporary restraining order.

Kratovil says he received a phone call Tuesday night from an anonymous tipster. The man, who didn't give his name, told Kratovil he could tell him which police officer threw away a book of traffic tickets, which Kratovil reported on earlier this month. The city is investigating the claim.

Kratovil and the man agreed to meet at Starbucks on George Street. When Kratovil showed up, he was arrested.

I-Team Investigates: Was last year’s deadly officer shooting of Springfield man justified?

By Jeff Goldberg

SPRINGFIELD, Va. (WJLA) – Nearly one year after a Springfield man was fatally shot by a Fairfax County Police officer, the question remains: was gunfire justified? The case in question is still open and unresolved.

On Aug. 29, 2013, John Geer was shot and killed by an FCPD officer following a 50-minute standoff at his Springfield townhome. The 46-year-old was unarmed.

The ABC 7 I-Team is investigating why so many questions remain unanswered.

Investigators in the case have made nothing public about their investigation, and have not said whether they plan to charge the officer involved in the shooting.

But Brad Garrett, a former FBI hostage negotiator and expert on criminal investigations, says the delay in answers should not lead to conclusions.

“It does seem like a long time, even to me,” Garrett said. “You can't assume because time has gone on that this case leads towards we wanna charge him [or] we don't wanna charge him."

On the night in question, Geer had been fighting with his common-law wife, who called 911. He admitted to police he had been drinking and had a gun in the house, but not on him. Witnesses report that at one point, while standing in the doorway, Geer slowly lowered his hands before a gunshot was fired.

“Does it really fit the parameters of a justifiable shooting?” Garret said. “At this point, we don’t know.”

In February, Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Ray Morrogh turned the case over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, citing a conflict of interest.

Garrett says prosecutors may still not have all the evidence they need to make a decision. Prosecutors are likely interviewing witnesses and law enforcement, looking at the history of Geer and the officer in question, and reviewing the circumstances—all to get it right.

“Really, the last thing you wanna do in a case like this, particularly involving police officers, is to charge them, but you don’t have the back-up to potentially convict them,” Garrett said.

Jeff Stewart, Geer’s close friend, spoke with ABC 7 in February, expressing frustration felt by family and friends over the waiting.

“At this point, we’re looking for answers,” Stewart said. “We don’t know, because we haven’t been told anything.”

The frustration is also shared among Geer’s neighbors, like Chris Mizera.

“Something like that happens in your neighborhood, you want answers, you wanna know exactly what happened,” Mizera said. “And that hasn’t been answered yet.”

Trial Date Set For Woman Suing City Of Tallahassee Over Police Brutality

by Greg Angel

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WTXL) --  A federal judge will begin hearing testimony next year in a lawsuit filed against the City of Tallahassee Police Department on behalf of a woman claiming police brutality.

Hon. R. Hinkle of the United States District Court of North Florida in Tallahassee is scheduled to begin hearing opening arguments in the Christina West case beginning May 4, 2015.

West gained national attention following the release of video of her August 2013 DUI arrest. She was accused of drunk driving, losing control of her van and then crashing into a bedroom of a home in the Killearn neighborhood.

Officers had faced scrutiny for their handling of West during the arrest. Police say she slipped out of her handcuffs and became combative.

Dashcam video shows officers slamming her onto the ground. West sustained a broken orbital bone along with scrapes and bruises to her body.

In the federal lawsuit filed in March of 2014, West claims "...the handcuffs had fallen from Mrs. West's wrists because they were too big."

Named in the suit is the the City of Tallahassee as well as four officers with the Tallahassee Police Department. They include Officers Chris Ormerod and Matthew Smidt, and Sergeants George Creamer and William Faust. Among the allegations, the suit claims the officers used excessive force during the arrest and fabricated evidence.

While a Leon County Grand Jury cleared the officers of any wrongdoing, each were disciplined by Tallahassee Police Department with varying suspensions.

West eventually pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor reckless driving charge in the case.

Philadelphians slam police brutality

During a meeting with a US Justice Department team in Philadelphia on Thursday, a group of people lashed out at the Police Department for a long history of unjustified shootings of blacks by white police officers.

Angry residents -- most of them African American, including several mothers who said their sons had been unjustly shot by the police – were present at the meeting, Philly.com reported.

The two-hour long City Hall meeting was part of an investigation into the department’s use of deadly force.

The Philadelphia Police Department has recently launched a probe to investigate officers’ alleged use of brutality on citizens.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey was present as investigators invited the public to talk about their experience with the department and where they think police violated their duties.

In 2013 Ramsey called for an investigation when he read the figures that showed police had fatally shot or wounded 52 people in 2012, according to Philly.com.

Many people said they lacked trust in police. They also accused the police of viewing them more as their enemies rather than as respected tax-payers. Some angrily called for cops involved in fatal shootings to be jailed, according to WPVI.

Here are a few statements made by people at the meeting:

-- "We believe it's hard to get justice for the citizens of police-involved shootings because police view them more as their enemies rather than as respected, tax-payers who pay their salary and who they are supposed to protect."

-- "Philadelphia is angry. We are angry and we are tired of waiting and we are tired of being studied and analyzed. We want some results."

-- "The problem begins at the top. The district attorney and the police commissioner.”

Police brutality has been a matter of concern across the US in recent years. The Justice Department is under intense pressure to review the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers.

Congresswoman says CHP officer should be fired for beating video, police brutality

By TAMI ABDOLLAH 

LOS ANGELES — A congresswoman said Wednesday that video of a California Highway Patrol officer repeatedly punching a woman he had pinned on the side of a Los Angeles freeway is unjustifiable police brutality.

Rep. Maxine Waters said the officer should be fired for "viciously" punching the woman and the CHP must thoroughly investigate.

She called the incident a "brutal attack" and said "there is nothing that can justify the officer punching a helpless woman on a freeway."

"This type of police brutality happens too often with African-Americans and we have seen it time and time again," Waters said in a statement. "Based on the video shown of the patrol officer's forceful punching of Marlene Pinnock, this is enough to demand his dismissal."

Her comments followed similar expressions of outrage and demands for a full investigation over the last week from civil rights activists and groups including the ACLU of Southern California.

CHP Commissioner Joe Farrow met with community leaders Tuesday and vowed to complete a comprehensive investigation in weeks instead of the usual months. He says he was shocked by the video and the department's reputation has been wounded.

The CHP said the woman was walking on Interstate 10 west of downtown Los Angeles, endangering herself and people in traffic, and the officer was trying to restrain her. The woman had begun walking off the freeway but returned when the confrontation occurred.

The now-viral video shot July 1 by a passing freeway driver shows Marlene Pinnock, 51, being repeatedly punched as she's straddled by the officer on the shoulder of the freeway.

The officer, who has one and a half years on the job, hasn't been identified and is on desk duty pending completion of the internal investigation.

Sgt. Denise Joslin said officials are working in conjunction with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office on the investigation. Members of the Los Angeles Police Department also offered their support and assistance and the U.S. attorney's office was briefed and consulted about the investigation, she said.

The investigation will primarily focus on the video itself and the officer's reason for using force, Farrow said.

Water said she will organize women to speak out about police brutality again and "demand justice and reforms that will create change within law enforcement to prevent this kind of abuse from continuing to happen."

For now, Pinnock remains in the hospital under a psychiatric hold. Her family found her covered in bruises, ice packs and taking pain medication.

"I'm just so overwhelmed," daughter Maisha Allums told reporters Tuesday. "I can't believe a CHP officer that was supposed to protect my mom and help my mom beat her like a — I can't even say like a dog because if it was a dog getting beat like that he would have been in jail."

Police Brutality Statistics In The United States Fell By 60 Percent When Cops Wear Video Cameras

     

Police brutality statistics apparently fell by 60 percent in one California town when all police officers were required to wear portable video cameras while on the job.

In a related report by The Inquisitr, a video of a CHP officer punching a fallen woman 11 times in the face went viral after it was filmed by a passing driver. But another video was even worse since it showed Albuquerque police shooting two suspects in the back, never mind when a homeless man was shot in the back.

The city of Rialto, California did a controlled study where the city’s 70 police officers were required to wear a video camera that recorded all of their interactions with the public. In 2012 alone complaints against Rialto police officers fell by 88 percent, while use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.

Rialto Police Chief William A. Farrar says it is not just his officers that behaved better when a camera was known to be watching:

“When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better.”

Cities like New York, Albuquerque, Fort Worth, and Oakland are considering implementing police cameras and even England is starting to adopt the practice with small-scale trial programs.

Of course, one huge negative to outfitting every cop with a camera is public privacy concerns. But even the American Civil Liberties Union, which is usually quick to protest anything that might infringe upon personal privacy, says that the notable drop in police brutality statistics is worth it:

“Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers.”

This is important because the Bureau of Justice Statistics once claimed the police brutality “rate was 6.6 complaints per 100 full-time sworn officers,” with 84 percent of these complaints targeting larger police departments. Out of the complaints that were officially investigated, “eight percent of the complaints were officially sustained, that is, there was sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action against the officer or officers.” This means that for their report the police brutality statistics recorded a rate of 0.528 percent, mean that about one in 200 police officers actually did commit an action requiring discipline in that time frame.

Do you think cop should be required to wear video cameras at times in order to prevent police brutality, or do you consider the privacy concerns more important?