The news yesterday evening was hyperventilating over a protest organized by UnOccupy Albuquerque at the courthouse and police headquarters over the mistrial of Keith Sandy and Dominque Perez for the killing of James Boyd.
Oh my, oh my. The news claimed the protest "turned violent" when protesters took to the street and blocked traffic briefly. Some of the drivers decided to proceed, in spite of people in the street blocking the way, and that resulted in some pushing and shoving between vehicles and people, and there was one report of a fight between a driver and someone in the street. There was also an instance in which a driver, plowing through people attempting to block his way, had his vehicle hit with a sign.
That was the "violence."
News people on the scene practically had the vapors.
Police eventually arrived and closed off the streets in the vicinity which dampened some of the conflict between drivers and protesters. At police headquarters, police with automatic weapons and dressed in camo fatigues guarded the building. Bless their hearts. Snipers were stationed on nearby rooftops (as had been the case during protest the night before.)
Then as darkness fell, police arrived at the courthouse (where the protest had reassembled) with their LRAD -- which I didn't see them use -- together with a half-dozen or so camoed-up and AR-15 wielding SWAT officers.
They were mocked and shouted at by protesters from ten yards away or so, most with their hands up ("don't shoot") and some on their knees. The news people watching this practically had their heart attacks at this point.
Finally, the last I saw of the protest, a line of several dozen camoed and AR carrying po-po assembled on one side of the street while the protesters formed a line on the other, and a stand off ensued.
I'll go check the news now and see if anything more happened. I suspect the protesters ultimately dispersed except for the more radical anarchist contingent, two or three of whom probably got themselves arrested.
We'll see.
The story, as seen on the 10pm news...
[I had to delete the teevee news segment due to an autoplay feature that I could not dismiss...fooey]
A slide show of the hoo-hah:
[Deleted the slide show as well. Still having the autoplay problems...fooey]
And a link to the news story
Just to make clear, Albuquerque has a very active police abuse protest community, but it has factions. While some are inclined to confront police, others are more nuanced and subtle. I saw both factions in play in the videos and news reports, and I recognized some of the participants from other protests I've been involved with. These are people who are dedicated to making waves and precipitating change.
The problem is and has been that when change occurs, as it has with APD, there is so little recognition of it...
Showing posts with label killer cops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label killer cops. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Friday, October 7, 2016
Killer Cop Trial in ABQ Goes To The Jury
I've been periodically watching the trial of Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy on the Livestream for the past two weeks or so. These are the APD officers who shot and killed James Boyd in the Sandia foothills on March 16, 2014, triggering an outpouring of public rage against the constant killing APD had long been engaged in.
The protests were large and sustained, and while there was a spate of killings by police in Albuquerque following the Boyd execution in the mountain foothills, eventually the DoJ came down hard on APD for their infamous 'pattern and practice' of 'unconstitutional policing.'
It took a while, but things have changed, and we haven't seen another killing (by APD) like Boyd's execution for a couple of years now, and the rate of killings by APD has been drastically cut. That isn't to say that people aren't still killed by law enforcement in Albuquerque. The rate is still rather high -- though not as high as it once was -- because other agencies such as US Marshals are doing most of he killing these days. For whatever reason, they appear to immune to accountability, but that's another issue for another time.
Perez and Sandy were originally charged with Murder 1 by discredited Bernalillo County DA Kari Brandenburg in January 2015. This was the first time she had ever charged any police officer in the death of a civilian -- after 16 years in office and dozens and dozens of police killings many of which were judged to be "unconstitutional."
But the combination of massive protests, a growing national reputation for a police department out of control, the economic impact of people staying away from Albuquerque and New Mexico because of the poor reputation of the police force, and the scathing DoJ report on the manifest failures of the Albuquerque Police Department spurred her into action, action for which she has been decried by some, praised by others.
In the end, she withdrew from the prosecution under pressure, appointing another attorney as special prosecutor, Randi McGinn. McGinn has a reputation for going hard against police misconduct, but watching her performance at this trial, I have to wonder about her level of competence. She seemed poorly prepared, disorganized, and at a loss when a blizzard of objections by the defense were sustained by the judge. According to what the judge said during arguments over jury instructions, McGinn was trying to apply a civil case standard to this criminal trial, and it didn't work. That was an interesting comment, though I'm not sure the judge was correct. It looked to me like McGinn wasn't thoroughly prepared and she had only very modest backup. In other words, it was a sketchy prosecution from the get-go.
On the other hand, the defense was thoroughly prepared and appeared to be very competent and in charge. It sounds sexist to say since both lead defense attorneys were men, but they had a very competent and prepared woman on their team whose skill at examining and cross examining witnesses was excellent. Nevertheless, the male lead defense attorneys were loud and belligerent, and their constant objections essentially forced the trial to favor the defense. The prosecution hardly objected at all, and most of their objections were overruled.
So. Ultimately the two killers (no one denied they killed Boyd) testified in their own defense and both came across as reasonably decent men who were "just doing their job." Which was of course to kill.
Perez was a Marine who'd served two tours in Iraq. He'd been badly injured in an IED explosion during his second tour, and when he got out of the Marines he decided to try for a position with the Albuquerque Police Department SWAT team. He was hired and had been with SWAT for a number of years when the "Boyd incident" happened in 2014.
Sandy had a more checkered past. He was fired from the State Police for double dipping which was considered dishonesty. He applied to APD as a 'lateral' transfer, and because APD had lowered its standards, he was promptly hired and put on the ROP team. ROP -- Repeat Offender Project -- has been disbanded due to intense criticism by the DoJ in their report on APD, but at the time of Boyd's killing, it was notorious as essentially a death squad. But then, given the rate of homicide by APD in those days, the whole department was seen by many as a death squad.
SWAT was more prestigious and advanced, and they had a wider range of options when confronting the Bad Guys, but they were no slouch when it came to killing. On the other hand, ROP was more informal and testosterone poisoned, and their whole reason for being appeared to pivot on their use of firearms no matter what. The dead piled up.
In Boyd's case, both Sandy and Perez were on the mountain as "lethal cover" for other officers -- or so they said -- who were preparing to arrest Boyd and take him into custody using force. It appears that Perez was assigned to the mountain by his SWAT supervisor whereas Sandy assigned himself, though that's not entirely clear. He was in communication with his supervisors, but I didn't hear whether they told him to go to the mountain or he decided to go on his own and informed his supervisors while he was en route. There was already another sniper on the mountain ready to take out Boyd if and when the order came.
Boyd was confronted by open space officers on the morning of March 16, 2014, due to a complaint lodged by a nearby homeowner. According to his somewhat strange testimony, Boyd had been camping on the hillside for a month, and this homeowner was increasingly alarmed because he was... there. This homeowner's garage became the assembly point for the dozens of officers who eventually made it to the mountain to observe and attempt to get Boyd to come down. The open space officers were unsuccessful in getting Boyd off the mountain, and I believe that when they confronted Boyd, he used his two knives to defend himself. He pulled them out, at any rate, and the officers withdrew.
They recognized, however, that Boyd was not in his right mind, and a CIT officer was called to the scene to negotiate with Boyd and to attempt to bring him down from the mountain. Other officers were called to the scene as back up. The crisis officer was making slow progress with Boyd when he was called off by SWAT(?) officers arriving on scene. They had their own negotiator, though it's not entirely clear that he engaged in any negotiations with Mr. Boyd. There were other instances I'm aware of where SWAT "negotiations" consisted entirely of shouted orders and commands, leading to the death by sniper fire of the suspect/subject.
The crisis officer who was pulled off the mountain testified that he had negotiated hundreds of times with mentally ill and otherwise in-crisis individuals, and every one of those cases was resolved "successfully" -- meaning that none of them led to the death of the subject.
Boyd was 38 and was diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. He'd been in and out of mental health care facilities, homeless shelters, jail and prison for much of his life. He'd been convicted of aggravated assault on police officers -- but the circumstances weren't exactly cut and dried. Apparently his sojourn on the mountain in his own camp was precipitated by an incident at the last homeless shelter where he'd been staying. He got into some kind of altercation with another resident, and it led to his ejection from the facility. Camping alone on the mountainside was his choice apparently, and for the month he'd been there, he had not gotten into any reported trouble. But the nearby homeowner could see his camp and for whatever reason, he was becoming increasingly alarmed. Eventually, he called the city's non-emergency number for someone to go out and check on Boyd. That call led to Boyd's death. I doubt that was the intent of the caller, but you never know.
Boyd was reluctant to leave his camp, in part, apparently, because it was a successful home-place for him in contrast to all the other places where been and wound up in conflict with others. Nothing like that was happening to him in this campsite. He was clearly delusional in his conversations with the police officers who came to get him off the mountain, but he was also quite clear that he didn't want to leave his camp and that he was afraid of the police -- because, he said, they were there to kill him.
Initially they weren't, but as the day wore on, and more and more officers arrived armed to the teeth, it became more and more obvious that's exactly what they were there for, at least to Boyd. When officers started pointing their guns at Boyd, he pulled out his knives in self-defense. This back and forth went on for hours. Eventually, it appears that officers decided to affect Boyd's arrest before it got dark.
To do this they formulated a plan of action that apparently wasn't communicated to all the officers on the mountain (there were 19, I heard, when Boyd was shot, 43 had been involved throughout the day). Keith Sandy was apparently the chief planner and he would be the one to implement the final act.
The plan was to disorient Boyd with a flash-bang, then loose a dog on him and fire a taser shotgun to disable him. He would then be taken into custody. The plan went wrong. Sandy tossed the flash-bang which landed some distance from Boyd. He didn't appear to react. The taser shotgun had no perceptible effect and may have missed Boyd altogether. The dog was loosed, but when it got close to Boyd, he pulled out his knives. The dog turned back, and as its handler went after the dog, Sandy fired at Boyd with his rifle. Two shots struck Boyd in his arms gravely wounding him. As Boyd began to fall, Perez then fired at Boyd, striking him in the back. Boyd fell to the ground paralyzed and bleeding. Officers approached shouting at him to "drop the knives!" He said he couldn't move. The dog was loosed on him again and he was mauled. He was shot with beanbag rounds. Orders continued to be shouted at him and he continued to say he couldn't move.
Eventually, brave officers approached his body and kicked the knives out of his hands. In time, paramedics were called up from their staging area at the foot of the mountain. Boyd was given first aid and transported to the hospital where one of his arms was amputated in an effort to save his life, but his other wounds were so severe, and he'd lost so much blood, it was essentially too late and he died the next day.
The prosecution claimed that Boyd was not an imminent threat to officers when he was shot, nor was he an imminent threat at any time during the confrontation. He was a potential threat, in that he was armed with knives and he said he would use them. But he was never close enough to officers to carry out that threat, and he never moved toward officers as if to attack them, even after he had been subjected to the flash-bang grenade, the dog, and the taser shotgun. He was actually in the process of surrendering when he was attacked by officers. The officers advanced on him, he didn't advance on them, and thus the officers were solely responsible for putting themselves in danger. Boyd had done nothing to endanger the officers.
Thus, murder.
Unfortunately, the final argument -- that the officers had caused their own danger -- was the one disallowed by the court. That, the judge said, was a civil case argument, inappropriate in a criminal trial. What effect that will have on the jury, I don't know. My sense all along, however, has been that there was little likelihood of conviction. "Just doing their job" has long been an adequate defense in court for police officers.
We'll see...
It took a while, but things have changed, and we haven't seen another killing (by APD) like Boyd's execution for a couple of years now, and the rate of killings by APD has been drastically cut. That isn't to say that people aren't still killed by law enforcement in Albuquerque. The rate is still rather high -- though not as high as it once was -- because other agencies such as US Marshals are doing most of he killing these days. For whatever reason, they appear to immune to accountability, but that's another issue for another time.
Perez and Sandy were originally charged with Murder 1 by discredited Bernalillo County DA Kari Brandenburg in January 2015. This was the first time she had ever charged any police officer in the death of a civilian -- after 16 years in office and dozens and dozens of police killings many of which were judged to be "unconstitutional."
But the combination of massive protests, a growing national reputation for a police department out of control, the economic impact of people staying away from Albuquerque and New Mexico because of the poor reputation of the police force, and the scathing DoJ report on the manifest failures of the Albuquerque Police Department spurred her into action, action for which she has been decried by some, praised by others.
In the end, she withdrew from the prosecution under pressure, appointing another attorney as special prosecutor, Randi McGinn. McGinn has a reputation for going hard against police misconduct, but watching her performance at this trial, I have to wonder about her level of competence. She seemed poorly prepared, disorganized, and at a loss when a blizzard of objections by the defense were sustained by the judge. According to what the judge said during arguments over jury instructions, McGinn was trying to apply a civil case standard to this criminal trial, and it didn't work. That was an interesting comment, though I'm not sure the judge was correct. It looked to me like McGinn wasn't thoroughly prepared and she had only very modest backup. In other words, it was a sketchy prosecution from the get-go.
On the other hand, the defense was thoroughly prepared and appeared to be very competent and in charge. It sounds sexist to say since both lead defense attorneys were men, but they had a very competent and prepared woman on their team whose skill at examining and cross examining witnesses was excellent. Nevertheless, the male lead defense attorneys were loud and belligerent, and their constant objections essentially forced the trial to favor the defense. The prosecution hardly objected at all, and most of their objections were overruled.
So. Ultimately the two killers (no one denied they killed Boyd) testified in their own defense and both came across as reasonably decent men who were "just doing their job." Which was of course to kill.
Perez was a Marine who'd served two tours in Iraq. He'd been badly injured in an IED explosion during his second tour, and when he got out of the Marines he decided to try for a position with the Albuquerque Police Department SWAT team. He was hired and had been with SWAT for a number of years when the "Boyd incident" happened in 2014.
Sandy had a more checkered past. He was fired from the State Police for double dipping which was considered dishonesty. He applied to APD as a 'lateral' transfer, and because APD had lowered its standards, he was promptly hired and put on the ROP team. ROP -- Repeat Offender Project -- has been disbanded due to intense criticism by the DoJ in their report on APD, but at the time of Boyd's killing, it was notorious as essentially a death squad. But then, given the rate of homicide by APD in those days, the whole department was seen by many as a death squad.
SWAT was more prestigious and advanced, and they had a wider range of options when confronting the Bad Guys, but they were no slouch when it came to killing. On the other hand, ROP was more informal and testosterone poisoned, and their whole reason for being appeared to pivot on their use of firearms no matter what. The dead piled up.
In Boyd's case, both Sandy and Perez were on the mountain as "lethal cover" for other officers -- or so they said -- who were preparing to arrest Boyd and take him into custody using force. It appears that Perez was assigned to the mountain by his SWAT supervisor whereas Sandy assigned himself, though that's not entirely clear. He was in communication with his supervisors, but I didn't hear whether they told him to go to the mountain or he decided to go on his own and informed his supervisors while he was en route. There was already another sniper on the mountain ready to take out Boyd if and when the order came.
Boyd was confronted by open space officers on the morning of March 16, 2014, due to a complaint lodged by a nearby homeowner. According to his somewhat strange testimony, Boyd had been camping on the hillside for a month, and this homeowner was increasingly alarmed because he was... there. This homeowner's garage became the assembly point for the dozens of officers who eventually made it to the mountain to observe and attempt to get Boyd to come down. The open space officers were unsuccessful in getting Boyd off the mountain, and I believe that when they confronted Boyd, he used his two knives to defend himself. He pulled them out, at any rate, and the officers withdrew.
They recognized, however, that Boyd was not in his right mind, and a CIT officer was called to the scene to negotiate with Boyd and to attempt to bring him down from the mountain. Other officers were called to the scene as back up. The crisis officer was making slow progress with Boyd when he was called off by SWAT(?) officers arriving on scene. They had their own negotiator, though it's not entirely clear that he engaged in any negotiations with Mr. Boyd. There were other instances I'm aware of where SWAT "negotiations" consisted entirely of shouted orders and commands, leading to the death by sniper fire of the suspect/subject.
The crisis officer who was pulled off the mountain testified that he had negotiated hundreds of times with mentally ill and otherwise in-crisis individuals, and every one of those cases was resolved "successfully" -- meaning that none of them led to the death of the subject.
Boyd was 38 and was diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. He'd been in and out of mental health care facilities, homeless shelters, jail and prison for much of his life. He'd been convicted of aggravated assault on police officers -- but the circumstances weren't exactly cut and dried. Apparently his sojourn on the mountain in his own camp was precipitated by an incident at the last homeless shelter where he'd been staying. He got into some kind of altercation with another resident, and it led to his ejection from the facility. Camping alone on the mountainside was his choice apparently, and for the month he'd been there, he had not gotten into any reported trouble. But the nearby homeowner could see his camp and for whatever reason, he was becoming increasingly alarmed. Eventually, he called the city's non-emergency number for someone to go out and check on Boyd. That call led to Boyd's death. I doubt that was the intent of the caller, but you never know.
Boyd was reluctant to leave his camp, in part, apparently, because it was a successful home-place for him in contrast to all the other places where been and wound up in conflict with others. Nothing like that was happening to him in this campsite. He was clearly delusional in his conversations with the police officers who came to get him off the mountain, but he was also quite clear that he didn't want to leave his camp and that he was afraid of the police -- because, he said, they were there to kill him.
Initially they weren't, but as the day wore on, and more and more officers arrived armed to the teeth, it became more and more obvious that's exactly what they were there for, at least to Boyd. When officers started pointing their guns at Boyd, he pulled out his knives in self-defense. This back and forth went on for hours. Eventually, it appears that officers decided to affect Boyd's arrest before it got dark.
To do this they formulated a plan of action that apparently wasn't communicated to all the officers on the mountain (there were 19, I heard, when Boyd was shot, 43 had been involved throughout the day). Keith Sandy was apparently the chief planner and he would be the one to implement the final act.
The plan was to disorient Boyd with a flash-bang, then loose a dog on him and fire a taser shotgun to disable him. He would then be taken into custody. The plan went wrong. Sandy tossed the flash-bang which landed some distance from Boyd. He didn't appear to react. The taser shotgun had no perceptible effect and may have missed Boyd altogether. The dog was loosed, but when it got close to Boyd, he pulled out his knives. The dog turned back, and as its handler went after the dog, Sandy fired at Boyd with his rifle. Two shots struck Boyd in his arms gravely wounding him. As Boyd began to fall, Perez then fired at Boyd, striking him in the back. Boyd fell to the ground paralyzed and bleeding. Officers approached shouting at him to "drop the knives!" He said he couldn't move. The dog was loosed on him again and he was mauled. He was shot with beanbag rounds. Orders continued to be shouted at him and he continued to say he couldn't move.
Eventually, brave officers approached his body and kicked the knives out of his hands. In time, paramedics were called up from their staging area at the foot of the mountain. Boyd was given first aid and transported to the hospital where one of his arms was amputated in an effort to save his life, but his other wounds were so severe, and he'd lost so much blood, it was essentially too late and he died the next day.
The prosecution claimed that Boyd was not an imminent threat to officers when he was shot, nor was he an imminent threat at any time during the confrontation. He was a potential threat, in that he was armed with knives and he said he would use them. But he was never close enough to officers to carry out that threat, and he never moved toward officers as if to attack them, even after he had been subjected to the flash-bang grenade, the dog, and the taser shotgun. He was actually in the process of surrendering when he was attacked by officers. The officers advanced on him, he didn't advance on them, and thus the officers were solely responsible for putting themselves in danger. Boyd had done nothing to endanger the officers.
Thus, murder.
Unfortunately, the final argument -- that the officers had caused their own danger -- was the one disallowed by the court. That, the judge said, was a civil case argument, inappropriate in a criminal trial. What effect that will have on the jury, I don't know. My sense all along, however, has been that there was little likelihood of conviction. "Just doing their job" has long been an adequate defense in court for police officers.
We'll see...
Monday, October 3, 2016
Cops Who Shouldn't Be On The Street
While I'm all but certain that Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez (executioners of James Boyd in Albuquerque in March of 2014) will be acquitted of murder, it's unlikely either one will go back to policing. The behavior of Albuquerque police has changed for the better since that killing, and neither one of them would be given the kinds of assignments they had on chilly hillside in March. For one thing, crisis intervention would be allowed to continue without the necessity of cover (as those engaged in negotiations would be a safe distance away from their subject), SWAT or other heavily armed response teams would not be visible, perhaps not even on site, and threats of bodily harm, expressed or implied, would not be made to Mr. Boyd.
Meanwhile, we have seen situations all over the country in which black men in crisis have been gunned down by trigger happy police who seem eager to bag them a trophy. It's insane. In some of these cases, the cops are clearly crazier than the men they kill.
One of those incidents happened in Sacramento in July when two crazed cops shot and killed Joseph Mann on Del Paso Boulevard in front of witnesses and cameras. As I reported previously, the Sacramento Police Department issued a narrative filled with lies and fabrications on the day of the killing, and it has only been through persistent pressure by Mann's family and the Sacramento Bee that something closer to the truth has come out. SPD was determined to withhold video of the incident, for example, in order to "protect" the "investigation," but as long as video was unavailable to the public, the SPD was free to spin the incident narrative to their advantage.
Their (false) story was that an erratic, disobedient Negro armed with a gun and a knife was reported by residents of North Sacramento who were scared. SPD said that this crazy Negro refused orders to drop his weapons and charged officers with his knife. One officer was injured in pursuit of him. This officer had to be hospitalized. Mann was pursued on foot by two other officers and was shot and killed when he lunged at them with his knife.
Almost none of this story was true.
A citizen video, taken by a witness, was released by Mann's family's attorney in August. It did not show the shooting itself, and some of it was shaky and difficult to decipher because it was taken at a distance, but it strongly indicated that the SPD narrative was false. Throughout this video, Mann attempts to get away from cops, he does not lunge at them or charge them. He does not obey them nor does he threaten anyone. Police issue "commands" via loudspeaker. A number of police vehicles arrive on the scene and they attempt to corral Mr. Mann as he attempts to elude them. They do not get out of their vehicles, nor do they pursue him on foot until just before he is killed. Officers on foot are seen to come from somewhere unknown, rushing up to Mann, and shots are heard. The camera pans away as the witness appears to duck; the next visual is the body of Mann lying on the sidewalk quite a distance from the witness and police rushing up to the victim.
It's not entirely clear from this video what happened, but it is clear enough that the police were not entirely truthful in their account of the incident.
The family demanded to see dashcam and any other video in police possession, but SPD adamantly refused and continued to stick with their largely false narrative of events.
Then the Sacramento Bee obtained and released surveillance footage that much more clearly showed the shooting itself. (This footage was released before the family saw it, and they were somewhat annoyed.) This video footage showed Mann running down a sidewalk on Del Paso Boulevard, stopping as police cars come ever closer, then trying to get away again, stopping again as two officers on foot approach. Mann raises his arm but does not "lunge" at officers -- who are approximately 30 feet away -- as they open fire. Mann falls to the sidewalk, and officers approach his body, one apparently kicking him.
Shortly after release of this video, SPD released three dashcam videos which showed different parts of the incident from different viewpoints. None of the dashcam videos clearly showed the shooting itself, but taken together, they showed a fairly comprehensive overview of the situation and the scene. They demonstrated the falsity of the police narrative and when combined with surveillance video and witness video, they confirmed that the police had simply lied about what happened, and in a perverse twist, they continued to lie, citing one dashcam video in particular as evidence that Mann "charged at" officers.
In fact, it showed the opposite of what police claimed it did. On initial release, there was no sound with this video, so the conversation between the officers in the car was not heard. Nevertheless, it appeared the car was rushing to the scene traveling west on Del Paso Blvd at high speed. When it arrives near Mr. Mann, the police narrative was that Mann "charged" the car, but it looks like the car is actually 'charging' him, and he's trying to avoid getting hit. As he passes by the car, the driver turns the car around and continues pursuit on Del Paso Blvd, stopping when it reaches the median. Mann crosses the street, and shortly two officers appear on foot following him. Within seconds, shots ring out (so there was sound after all!) and other officers rush up to the obscured scene.
Two days ago, the Sacramento Bee re-released this dashcam video with officer conversation in the car -- which had been muted in the original release by SPD. This conversation clearly indicates that these officers rushing to the scene intended to hit Mr. Mann with the car, and when they were unsuccessful, they were the ones who rushed up to him as he stopped on that sidewalk and they were the ones who shot him dead from almost thirty feet away.
Here's the story as it appears in Newsweek.
Here's the original story as it appeared in the Sacramento Bee.
And here's the video with sound:
This is actually quite shocking because it demonstrates intent. These officers are intent on gravely injuring Mr. Mann by striking him with their vehicle at high speed, and when they are unsuccessful, they exit the vehicle and rush to within thirty feet of him and shoot him dead. This is obviously intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter at the least, murder 1, more likely.
There can be no "fearing for my life and the safety of others" defense, though I'm sure it will continue to be offered. There was no threat to these officers at all; they were the ones threatening great bodily harm, not Mr. Mann. In fact they attempted twice to run over Mr. Mann, and when they were unsuccessful, they ran from their car and shot him. They shot him from a distance where they were not objectively in any danger from Mr. Mann who, in any case, did not threaten them. Nor were any other officers in any objective danger from Mr. Mann at that time, as they were all still in their vehicles.
There were a few people on the street, and some observers have tried to make the case that Mr. Mann was a danger to them. That argument is weak due to the fact that Mr. Mann is never seen threatening anyone on the street, and further, the initial calls to 911, while falsely claiming Mr. Mann has a knife and a gun, do not in any way indicate that Mr. Mann is threatening people. They say he is throwing his knife in the air and catching it, and claim falsely that he is taking out his gun and putting it back in his waistband. That is all.
At no time in any of the videos is Mr. Mann able to be an objective threat to officers in their vehicles, nor is he seen to charge or lunge at officers with his knife (the only weapon he actually has.) At no time is Mr. Mann seen to threaten bystanders or pedestrians. The only things Mr. Mann is seen to do is try to elude police (not very well as he stays on sidewalks and streets) and he appears to tell them to go away/leave him alone. At one point he throws what was later said to be a mug or a thermos at a pursuing police car. That is literally all he is seen to do that might be interpreted as a "threat" to anyone.
Until the two cops who kill him arrive, the other officers are safe in their vehicles and are relatively patiently trying to corral Mr. Mann with their vehicles in an effort to contain him prior to disarming him. He is able to get away, but not very effectively. He never actually threatens police or bystanders.
Police officers in their vehicles have him almost contained when the other officers on foot rush up and kill him.
Under the circumstances -- and given all the other police killings of black men recently -- these officers should be held to account; they should be arrested and charged with murder an the lesser included voluntary manslaughter, and they should be put on trial.
I don't know whether they would be convicted, but the death of Joseph Mann should not be allowed to fade into the background noise of police killings. This one, perhaps more than the others (except for the execution of Terence Crutcher in Oklahoma), should be seen for what it was, an intentional and egregious killing, a murder in a word, of a man in crisis, without so much as a moment's hesitation.
Let's see what happens...
Meanwhile, we have seen situations all over the country in which black men in crisis have been gunned down by trigger happy police who seem eager to bag them a trophy. It's insane. In some of these cases, the cops are clearly crazier than the men they kill.
One of those incidents happened in Sacramento in July when two crazed cops shot and killed Joseph Mann on Del Paso Boulevard in front of witnesses and cameras. As I reported previously, the Sacramento Police Department issued a narrative filled with lies and fabrications on the day of the killing, and it has only been through persistent pressure by Mann's family and the Sacramento Bee that something closer to the truth has come out. SPD was determined to withhold video of the incident, for example, in order to "protect" the "investigation," but as long as video was unavailable to the public, the SPD was free to spin the incident narrative to their advantage.
Their (false) story was that an erratic, disobedient Negro armed with a gun and a knife was reported by residents of North Sacramento who were scared. SPD said that this crazy Negro refused orders to drop his weapons and charged officers with his knife. One officer was injured in pursuit of him. This officer had to be hospitalized. Mann was pursued on foot by two other officers and was shot and killed when he lunged at them with his knife.
Almost none of this story was true.
A citizen video, taken by a witness, was released by Mann's family's attorney in August. It did not show the shooting itself, and some of it was shaky and difficult to decipher because it was taken at a distance, but it strongly indicated that the SPD narrative was false. Throughout this video, Mann attempts to get away from cops, he does not lunge at them or charge them. He does not obey them nor does he threaten anyone. Police issue "commands" via loudspeaker. A number of police vehicles arrive on the scene and they attempt to corral Mr. Mann as he attempts to elude them. They do not get out of their vehicles, nor do they pursue him on foot until just before he is killed. Officers on foot are seen to come from somewhere unknown, rushing up to Mann, and shots are heard. The camera pans away as the witness appears to duck; the next visual is the body of Mann lying on the sidewalk quite a distance from the witness and police rushing up to the victim.
It's not entirely clear from this video what happened, but it is clear enough that the police were not entirely truthful in their account of the incident.
The family demanded to see dashcam and any other video in police possession, but SPD adamantly refused and continued to stick with their largely false narrative of events.
Then the Sacramento Bee obtained and released surveillance footage that much more clearly showed the shooting itself. (This footage was released before the family saw it, and they were somewhat annoyed.) This video footage showed Mann running down a sidewalk on Del Paso Boulevard, stopping as police cars come ever closer, then trying to get away again, stopping again as two officers on foot approach. Mann raises his arm but does not "lunge" at officers -- who are approximately 30 feet away -- as they open fire. Mann falls to the sidewalk, and officers approach his body, one apparently kicking him.
Shortly after release of this video, SPD released three dashcam videos which showed different parts of the incident from different viewpoints. None of the dashcam videos clearly showed the shooting itself, but taken together, they showed a fairly comprehensive overview of the situation and the scene. They demonstrated the falsity of the police narrative and when combined with surveillance video and witness video, they confirmed that the police had simply lied about what happened, and in a perverse twist, they continued to lie, citing one dashcam video in particular as evidence that Mann "charged at" officers.
In fact, it showed the opposite of what police claimed it did. On initial release, there was no sound with this video, so the conversation between the officers in the car was not heard. Nevertheless, it appeared the car was rushing to the scene traveling west on Del Paso Blvd at high speed. When it arrives near Mr. Mann, the police narrative was that Mann "charged" the car, but it looks like the car is actually 'charging' him, and he's trying to avoid getting hit. As he passes by the car, the driver turns the car around and continues pursuit on Del Paso Blvd, stopping when it reaches the median. Mann crosses the street, and shortly two officers appear on foot following him. Within seconds, shots ring out (so there was sound after all!) and other officers rush up to the obscured scene.
Two days ago, the Sacramento Bee re-released this dashcam video with officer conversation in the car -- which had been muted in the original release by SPD. This conversation clearly indicates that these officers rushing to the scene intended to hit Mr. Mann with the car, and when they were unsuccessful, they were the ones who rushed up to him as he stopped on that sidewalk and they were the ones who shot him dead from almost thirty feet away.
Here's the story as it appears in Newsweek.
Here's the original story as it appeared in the Sacramento Bee.
And here's the video with sound:
This is actually quite shocking because it demonstrates intent. These officers are intent on gravely injuring Mr. Mann by striking him with their vehicle at high speed, and when they are unsuccessful, they exit the vehicle and rush to within thirty feet of him and shoot him dead. This is obviously intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter at the least, murder 1, more likely.
There can be no "fearing for my life and the safety of others" defense, though I'm sure it will continue to be offered. There was no threat to these officers at all; they were the ones threatening great bodily harm, not Mr. Mann. In fact they attempted twice to run over Mr. Mann, and when they were unsuccessful, they ran from their car and shot him. They shot him from a distance where they were not objectively in any danger from Mr. Mann who, in any case, did not threaten them. Nor were any other officers in any objective danger from Mr. Mann at that time, as they were all still in their vehicles.
There were a few people on the street, and some observers have tried to make the case that Mr. Mann was a danger to them. That argument is weak due to the fact that Mr. Mann is never seen threatening anyone on the street, and further, the initial calls to 911, while falsely claiming Mr. Mann has a knife and a gun, do not in any way indicate that Mr. Mann is threatening people. They say he is throwing his knife in the air and catching it, and claim falsely that he is taking out his gun and putting it back in his waistband. That is all.
At no time in any of the videos is Mr. Mann able to be an objective threat to officers in their vehicles, nor is he seen to charge or lunge at officers with his knife (the only weapon he actually has.) At no time is Mr. Mann seen to threaten bystanders or pedestrians. The only things Mr. Mann is seen to do is try to elude police (not very well as he stays on sidewalks and streets) and he appears to tell them to go away/leave him alone. At one point he throws what was later said to be a mug or a thermos at a pursuing police car. That is literally all he is seen to do that might be interpreted as a "threat" to anyone.
Until the two cops who kill him arrive, the other officers are safe in their vehicles and are relatively patiently trying to corral Mr. Mann with their vehicles in an effort to contain him prior to disarming him. He is able to get away, but not very effectively. He never actually threatens police or bystanders.
Police officers in their vehicles have him almost contained when the other officers on foot rush up and kill him.
Under the circumstances -- and given all the other police killings of black men recently -- these officers should be held to account; they should be arrested and charged with murder an the lesser included voluntary manslaughter, and they should be put on trial.
I don't know whether they would be convicted, but the death of Joseph Mann should not be allowed to fade into the background noise of police killings. This one, perhaps more than the others (except for the execution of Terence Crutcher in Oklahoma), should be seen for what it was, an intentional and egregious killing, a murder in a word, of a man in crisis, without so much as a moment's hesitation.
Let's see what happens...
Thursday, December 31, 2015
All Kinds of Wrong
In my not abundant free time I've been trying to wade through the very poorly written and edited 74pg report by the Cuyuhoga County Prosecutor's Office (scroll down for the report itself) that they say justifies the Grand Jury's no bill in the murder-by-cop of young Tamir Rice.
I didn't see McGinty's show-and-tell at which he apparently went through the report, but it's just as well. I would have been furious, and that's no good for my blood pressure.
The report is filled with so many typos and so much nonsense and outright falsehood that it takes your breath away. And it took more than a year for the "investigation" and the "process" to unfold, no? Why? As many observers have pointed out, there was more than enough evidence to hold both officers for trial, and it was obvious from the start.
In the case of a cop who kills, it's almost impossible to get a conviction, especially when the DA is acting as defense counsel as McGinty was in this case, but there is often no lack of evidence to charge and try the said cop in court. Of course, that almost never happens.
Yes, McGinty is acting as defense counsel for the police whose actions that awful day when Tamir Rice was shot by Timothy Loehmann at the Cudel Recreation Center were supposed to be evaluated by the Grand Jury with regard to whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge and try them. That's all.
There was more than enough evidence to charge and try them. It doesn't mean there would necessarily be a conviction -- as I say, almost impossible to get -- but a trial in open court was certainly warranted. Instead, a kind of mock trial in which only the defense was present and only the defense was presented to the GJ by the DA was held behind closed doors. This is not justice, not even its shadow. This was farce.
The defense, yes. There was no prosecution, there was no attempt at presenting evidence for a possible prosecution of officers Loehmann and Garmback. The only evidence presented was a defense of their actions.
And then a defense of the DA's office for not presenting a case for prosecution.
How very circular. How very wrong.
There are many obvious falsehoods in this report, falsehoods upon which the DA rests his defense of the officers in the killing of Tamir Rice. The most glaring is the statement by Officer Loehmann himself, a statement which was apparently presented in whole to the Grand Jury, read by Loehmann to the jurors, a statement which he allowed to present without question or cross examination. By itself, this was a highly unusual and bordered on malfeasance. The statement itself was not new. It had been in the press before, and it had been picked apart because it is riddled with falsehood. But the DA chose to accept Loehmann's statement -- and the statements of other officers -- as true facts. They aren't. And if the goal is justice (it wasn't) the statements of police officers, especially of the killers themselves, have to be open to question. They weren't.
Instead, the DA sought evidence to corroborate, not to dispute, the officers' statements. When he believed he had sufficient evidence to do that, he advised the GJ not to indict.
Because the officers only did what they had to do -- based on the erroneous and incomplete information they had from a 911 caller and dispatch and the fear they felt due to the actions of their deceased victim. The officers had a duty and obligation to neutralize the active shooter threat that they believed Tamir Rice represented. And so they did, with lethal force, which is what they are authorized and empowered to do. The officers committed no crime, according to the DA, because in essence, they couldn't. There were many errors all along the way, he claimed, but the outcome -- a dead boy -- was not one of them. Based on the information they had and the actions of the boy, they had no choice but to kill him to save their own lives and protect the safety of others.
This is all kinds of wrong, but the DA in this case doesn't seem to recognize that.
The first thing to recognize -- which the DA doesn't -- is that there was no credible threat at any time to anyone from Tamir Rice that day. The only threat came from the police to Tamir Rice. Tamir Rice was not armed with a weapon, he had a toy gun. It's been called a BB gun or a "replica gun" (the term of choice used by the DA) but it was an Airsoft gun that could at worst cause slight injury if he had ever fired at anyone. So far as the evidence shows, Tamir never shot a plastic pellet from the gun at any time before or during the 911 call nor did he (nor could he) when the police arrived. He may never have shot a pellet at all. But even if he had, it wouldn't have been known to the officers -- because there was no report of his firing.
Nevertheless, the officers approached Tamir as if he were an active shooter and the situation was that of an active shooter causing multiple injuries and death. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. There was simply no call for treating him as an active shooter to be neutralized on sight. None.
Well, except for this: The report that was transmitted to the officers was that a black male was in the park aiming a gun at people. Bingo. That's all it takes in Ohio to justify police who kill them. It's happened repeatedly in Ohio (elsewhere too, but Ohio stands out because it is an open carry state. Well, for whites.)
All it takes to get a black male shot by police on sight is a 911 caller saying that an armed black male is waving his gun around and pointing it at people.
Bam! Or in Tamir's case, "bam-bam." Loehmann proudly says in his statement that he attempted a "tap-tap" by firing twice, but sadly only hit the boy with one bullet. No doubt he'll try to do better next time.
McGinty defends the "active shooter" approach to Tamir by saying that it was actually required of the officers by protocol, training and the law. They had no choice. Even though there were no reports AT ALL of anyone firing any weapon, because there was the potential that Tamir might become an active shooter, he had to be neutralized according to the protocols of the PD and the law in Ohio. They were not to assess; they were to act. And their act of killing Tamir was required of them due to the gravity of the situation.
This is so far from any sane policy, my head is spinning. It is practically the definition of "murder at will" -- because of fear that something might happen. This is almost the same excuse that was used to justify the killing of John Crawford III at that Walmart near Dayton. But there have been many others. All it takes is somebody calling 911 about a black man with a gun and reports of "pointing it at people." True or false, it doesn't matter. The black man will be a dead man (or boy) shortly.
True or false, it doesn't matter.
McGinty essentially says just that. The police are not to assess anything. They are to act on their split-second decision to neutralize (ie: kill) the reported threat. That is all.
Any delay or assessment of the true situation or any failure to shoot first before the victim can shoot at them is potentially deadly to them or others. Ergo, they are justified at law and by training when they kill reported "threats."
It doesn't matter whether the report is true or not. In the case of John Crawford III, the 911 caller made indubitably false claims about the actions of Mr. Crawford, and police acted on those false claims (of loading and aiming an automatic weapon at customers), and they were not held criminally liable.
In the case of Tamir Rice, the 911 caller repeatedly tried to clarify that the gun he saw the boy waving around was "probably fake" and the boy himself was "probably a kid." Didn't matter. That information was never passed on to the responding officers, but even if it had been, it wouldn't have made much difference, because they were psyched for an "active shooter" encounter, and because, according to McGinty's video enhancement expert, Tamir reached for the gun in his waistband.
Talk about all kinds of wrong. The video is grainy and taken from a distance. It does not "indubitably" show Tamir reaching for the gun. McGinty says it is "indubitable" because his expert says so, but the expert is interpreting his own enhancement, not seeing with any sort of clarity what the boy is actually doing.
In my view, it's just as likely that he is taking his hands out of his pockets and attempting to "show his hands" as the police car skids to a stop. There is no sign -- whatever -- that he actually takes the gun from his waistband (as stated in Loehmann's account). McGinty makes the announcement that Loehmann's account is confirmed by this video enhancement, but that's false. That's not what it shows. But even if it did, it wouldn't constitute an actual threat to the officers or anyone else.
McGinty claims that the Airsoft gun "looks real" -- which it does -- but that's irrelevant if, as I suspect, neither officer ever saw the gun until after Tamir was shot.
And so it goes. The report is one falsehood after another, one irrelevancy after another, one wrong after another.
And cops who kill walk once again, because the DA does not prosecute cops who kill, the DA defends them.
America. 2015.
I didn't see McGinty's show-and-tell at which he apparently went through the report, but it's just as well. I would have been furious, and that's no good for my blood pressure.
The report is filled with so many typos and so much nonsense and outright falsehood that it takes your breath away. And it took more than a year for the "investigation" and the "process" to unfold, no? Why? As many observers have pointed out, there was more than enough evidence to hold both officers for trial, and it was obvious from the start.
In the case of a cop who kills, it's almost impossible to get a conviction, especially when the DA is acting as defense counsel as McGinty was in this case, but there is often no lack of evidence to charge and try the said cop in court. Of course, that almost never happens.
Yes, McGinty is acting as defense counsel for the police whose actions that awful day when Tamir Rice was shot by Timothy Loehmann at the Cudel Recreation Center were supposed to be evaluated by the Grand Jury with regard to whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge and try them. That's all.
There was more than enough evidence to charge and try them. It doesn't mean there would necessarily be a conviction -- as I say, almost impossible to get -- but a trial in open court was certainly warranted. Instead, a kind of mock trial in which only the defense was present and only the defense was presented to the GJ by the DA was held behind closed doors. This is not justice, not even its shadow. This was farce.
The defense, yes. There was no prosecution, there was no attempt at presenting evidence for a possible prosecution of officers Loehmann and Garmback. The only evidence presented was a defense of their actions.
And then a defense of the DA's office for not presenting a case for prosecution.
How very circular. How very wrong.
There are many obvious falsehoods in this report, falsehoods upon which the DA rests his defense of the officers in the killing of Tamir Rice. The most glaring is the statement by Officer Loehmann himself, a statement which was apparently presented in whole to the Grand Jury, read by Loehmann to the jurors, a statement which he allowed to present without question or cross examination. By itself, this was a highly unusual and bordered on malfeasance. The statement itself was not new. It had been in the press before, and it had been picked apart because it is riddled with falsehood. But the DA chose to accept Loehmann's statement -- and the statements of other officers -- as true facts. They aren't. And if the goal is justice (it wasn't) the statements of police officers, especially of the killers themselves, have to be open to question. They weren't.
Instead, the DA sought evidence to corroborate, not to dispute, the officers' statements. When he believed he had sufficient evidence to do that, he advised the GJ not to indict.
Because the officers only did what they had to do -- based on the erroneous and incomplete information they had from a 911 caller and dispatch and the fear they felt due to the actions of their deceased victim. The officers had a duty and obligation to neutralize the active shooter threat that they believed Tamir Rice represented. And so they did, with lethal force, which is what they are authorized and empowered to do. The officers committed no crime, according to the DA, because in essence, they couldn't. There were many errors all along the way, he claimed, but the outcome -- a dead boy -- was not one of them. Based on the information they had and the actions of the boy, they had no choice but to kill him to save their own lives and protect the safety of others.
This is all kinds of wrong, but the DA in this case doesn't seem to recognize that.
The first thing to recognize -- which the DA doesn't -- is that there was no credible threat at any time to anyone from Tamir Rice that day. The only threat came from the police to Tamir Rice. Tamir Rice was not armed with a weapon, he had a toy gun. It's been called a BB gun or a "replica gun" (the term of choice used by the DA) but it was an Airsoft gun that could at worst cause slight injury if he had ever fired at anyone. So far as the evidence shows, Tamir never shot a plastic pellet from the gun at any time before or during the 911 call nor did he (nor could he) when the police arrived. He may never have shot a pellet at all. But even if he had, it wouldn't have been known to the officers -- because there was no report of his firing.
Nevertheless, the officers approached Tamir as if he were an active shooter and the situation was that of an active shooter causing multiple injuries and death. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. There was simply no call for treating him as an active shooter to be neutralized on sight. None.
Well, except for this: The report that was transmitted to the officers was that a black male was in the park aiming a gun at people. Bingo. That's all it takes in Ohio to justify police who kill them. It's happened repeatedly in Ohio (elsewhere too, but Ohio stands out because it is an open carry state. Well, for whites.)
All it takes to get a black male shot by police on sight is a 911 caller saying that an armed black male is waving his gun around and pointing it at people.
Bam! Or in Tamir's case, "bam-bam." Loehmann proudly says in his statement that he attempted a "tap-tap" by firing twice, but sadly only hit the boy with one bullet. No doubt he'll try to do better next time.
McGinty defends the "active shooter" approach to Tamir by saying that it was actually required of the officers by protocol, training and the law. They had no choice. Even though there were no reports AT ALL of anyone firing any weapon, because there was the potential that Tamir might become an active shooter, he had to be neutralized according to the protocols of the PD and the law in Ohio. They were not to assess; they were to act. And their act of killing Tamir was required of them due to the gravity of the situation.
This is so far from any sane policy, my head is spinning. It is practically the definition of "murder at will" -- because of fear that something might happen. This is almost the same excuse that was used to justify the killing of John Crawford III at that Walmart near Dayton. But there have been many others. All it takes is somebody calling 911 about a black man with a gun and reports of "pointing it at people." True or false, it doesn't matter. The black man will be a dead man (or boy) shortly.
True or false, it doesn't matter.
McGinty essentially says just that. The police are not to assess anything. They are to act on their split-second decision to neutralize (ie: kill) the reported threat. That is all.
Any delay or assessment of the true situation or any failure to shoot first before the victim can shoot at them is potentially deadly to them or others. Ergo, they are justified at law and by training when they kill reported "threats."
It doesn't matter whether the report is true or not. In the case of John Crawford III, the 911 caller made indubitably false claims about the actions of Mr. Crawford, and police acted on those false claims (of loading and aiming an automatic weapon at customers), and they were not held criminally liable.
In the case of Tamir Rice, the 911 caller repeatedly tried to clarify that the gun he saw the boy waving around was "probably fake" and the boy himself was "probably a kid." Didn't matter. That information was never passed on to the responding officers, but even if it had been, it wouldn't have made much difference, because they were psyched for an "active shooter" encounter, and because, according to McGinty's video enhancement expert, Tamir reached for the gun in his waistband.
Talk about all kinds of wrong. The video is grainy and taken from a distance. It does not "indubitably" show Tamir reaching for the gun. McGinty says it is "indubitable" because his expert says so, but the expert is interpreting his own enhancement, not seeing with any sort of clarity what the boy is actually doing.
In my view, it's just as likely that he is taking his hands out of his pockets and attempting to "show his hands" as the police car skids to a stop. There is no sign -- whatever -- that he actually takes the gun from his waistband (as stated in Loehmann's account). McGinty makes the announcement that Loehmann's account is confirmed by this video enhancement, but that's false. That's not what it shows. But even if it did, it wouldn't constitute an actual threat to the officers or anyone else.
McGinty claims that the Airsoft gun "looks real" -- which it does -- but that's irrelevant if, as I suspect, neither officer ever saw the gun until after Tamir was shot.
And so it goes. The report is one falsehood after another, one irrelevancy after another, one wrong after another.
And cops who kill walk once again, because the DA does not prosecute cops who kill, the DA defends them.
America. 2015.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
This is Insane. This MUST Stop NOW...
I've been very frustrated with the lack of progress in reducing or ending police violence and killing in this country. Indeed, the rate of police homicide has gone up, not down, since the advent of nationwide protest actions against it after the execution of James Boyd by police snipers in Albuquerque in March of 2015.
Police killed more civilians in 2015 than they did in 2014 and there seems to be no focused effort on curbing the killing.
Protest has not accomplished that goal -- if it even is a goal anymore.
Recently the San Diego DA released video of a police killing that happened there in April. It's yet another shocking indication of police mis-interpreting far too many individuals and actions as threats that MUST be met with lethal force, which in almost every case is defended by their departments and DAs as somehow necessary to the protection and well being of cities and society.
NO! These killings create chaos and destruction, they ruin lives, families and communities. They are doing just the opposite of what so many defenses of police killing and violence claim. They are insane. They MUST STOP.
This defense of the police killing of Fridoon Nehad in San Diego makes no sense at all.
The officer who killed him had no knowledge of the "threat" except that provided by the dispatcher based on erroneous information relayed to 911 by a clerk at a bookstore who thought he saw the victim brandishing a knife. The victim was not armed. He DID NOT HAVE A KNIFE. Even if he had been armed with a knife, HE WAS NOT THREATENING ANYONE, and even if he had been, doing so IS NOT A DEATH PENALTY OFFENSE.
Repeat: Brandishing and even threatening with a knife IS NOT A DEATH PENALTY OFFENSE.
Furthermore, police are not intended to be judge, jury and executioner whenever they feel afraid.
The officer in this case was so frightened by the mere presence of this man who he believed was the suspect in an ERRONEOUS 911 call and dispatch that he shot him essentially on sight.
This has happened HUNDREDS of times so far this year. And it must STOP.
STOP THE KILLING. STOP THE KILLING NOW.
Happy Holidays...
Police killed more civilians in 2015 than they did in 2014 and there seems to be no focused effort on curbing the killing.
Protest has not accomplished that goal -- if it even is a goal anymore.
Recently the San Diego DA released video of a police killing that happened there in April. It's yet another shocking indication of police mis-interpreting far too many individuals and actions as threats that MUST be met with lethal force, which in almost every case is defended by their departments and DAs as somehow necessary to the protection and well being of cities and society.
NO! These killings create chaos and destruction, they ruin lives, families and communities. They are doing just the opposite of what so many defenses of police killing and violence claim. They are insane. They MUST STOP.
This defense of the police killing of Fridoon Nehad in San Diego makes no sense at all.
The officer who killed him had no knowledge of the "threat" except that provided by the dispatcher based on erroneous information relayed to 911 by a clerk at a bookstore who thought he saw the victim brandishing a knife. The victim was not armed. He DID NOT HAVE A KNIFE. Even if he had been armed with a knife, HE WAS NOT THREATENING ANYONE, and even if he had been, doing so IS NOT A DEATH PENALTY OFFENSE.
Repeat: Brandishing and even threatening with a knife IS NOT A DEATH PENALTY OFFENSE.
Furthermore, police are not intended to be judge, jury and executioner whenever they feel afraid.
The officer in this case was so frightened by the mere presence of this man who he believed was the suspect in an ERRONEOUS 911 call and dispatch that he shot him essentially on sight.
This has happened HUNDREDS of times so far this year. And it must STOP.
STOP THE KILLING. STOP THE KILLING NOW.
Happy Holidays...
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Oh Now.... Priorities!!!
AG Loretta Lynch has opened her yap and apparently caused something of a stir in the activist community by dismissing the requirement that local police forces maintain and submit records of all the police killings and deaths in custody that happen in their jurisdictions.
No, she proclaims, keeping track of the "minutae" of police-public interactions is less important than "improving" police-community relations...
All righty then.
Statistics on police killings of civilians and civilian deaths in custody have been vastly understated for any number of years. I don't think there's ever been an accurate official count, and the statistics released by FBI are simply ridiculous. That wasn't even noticed beyond a certain community of activists until last year's uproar over the deaths of James Boyd, Michael Brown, Eric Garner and so very many others.
Then a 'national conversation' got underway about the problem of police killings of civilians, and part of that 'conversation' was the lack of accurate and complete official data on the number of civilians killed by police and civilian deaths in custody. Nobody was keeping track because it wasn't required.
Actually it was required. A law was passed in 1996 requiring police departments to report incidents of use of force and deaths in custody, but it was never enforced due to complaints from the field that the costs of reporting were beyond the abilities of many departments to handle. Consequently they couldn't be required to report.
Media stepped into the vacuum, first with a Facebook page called "Killed by Police" begun in May of 2013. This is an effort to track every media report of police killing of civilians and every report of civilian death in custody in almost real time. To date, it is the most comprehensive and up to date listing of civilian deaths at the hands of police in existence. It is not, however, the flashiest, nor is it necessarily the most often cited. That would be the Guardian's "The Counted." In a distant third place would be the Washington Post's data on police shootings of civilians.
I noticed long ago that local media was more than happy to publicize police killings of civilians -- no doubt on the journalistic principle that "if it bleeds it leads". Some of the reports were quite lurid. On the other hand, they almost always stuck with the police version of events, as if there were some Immortal Truth in police statements -- which, of course, always justified their actions in eliminating the threat of yet one more civilian perpetrator.
It became a routine. Someone would be killed by a police officer. Inevitably, their mug shots and criminal history would be promptly released and litany of offenses which led to their death would be read out, almost always including "pointing a gun" or "reaching for waistband" thus causing the officer to "fear for his life and the safety of others" and justifying the discharge of his duty weapon. The suspect/subject subsequently "died" -- exactly how is "under investigation." The officer involved has been put on "standard paid administrative leave."
These reports were sometimes accompanied by dash-cam or body-cam views of the incident, but many times, there was no verification of police reports at all. Media accepted whatever the police said about these killings almost always without question. But that started to change when civilian witness videos became more and more available. Many of these videos showed quite clearly that the police version of events were fraudulent and false. Too many unarmed people, too many innocents were being killed, and police routinely felt comfortable lying about what happened.
Oh.
Police departments saw this discrepancy as primarily a public relations problem. They did not, at least at first, see any problem with their actions. Killings by police were always justified, and the lies and falsehoods that wound up in reports were merely the result of the "fog of battle" -- or what have you.
Police only killed out of absolute necessity, and only as the last resort. Always.
Videos showed that in many cases, police killed their victims on sight or within seconds of the encounter, without bothering to find out what was really happening; many victims were unarmed; some were surrendering or attempting to obey commands barked by officers when they were shot. Others were clearly having psychological issues that prevented immediate compliance, and so they were shot. Over and over again, police were shown escalating situations rather than defusing them, these escalations leading too often to use of deadly force by police. Too many times, police were shown using deadly force where none was called for, often in response to a 911 call from a concerned family member requesting medical intervention.
And of course these videos exposed a glaring racial disparity in police use of force and killings. Police abused and killed black people at a rate far greater than that of whites. It was plain to see. Black people were being shot and killed by police as a matter of course, whereas white folks would often be treated with kid gloves -- no matter if they were armed or even shooting at police. The discrepancy was stark and obvious. And it wasn't just black people; Native Americans, Hispanics, and mentally ill people of any race were being subjected to lethal force as a matter of course.
The rate of killing by police was much higher than had been previously believed due to the significant undercount annually reported by the FBI. The actual death rate at the hands of police is still unknown because many deaths in custody aren't reported. But just those police involved homicides reported in the media were three times the number cited by the FBI in its incomplete -- actually false -- reports.
Now Loretta Lynch is saying we don't really need accurate statistics on the number of deaths caused by police -- as gaining those statistics might-could be a burden on already over-stressed and under-funded/staffed police departments, and we really want to improve relationships with the communities police patrol rather than obsessing on numbers anyway, right?
Good God.
Good freaking God. What is the matter with her?
Crime is at a nearly all-time low. There are more people in jail and prison in this country than in any other nation in the world. Well over a thousand people die at the hands of police in this country every year, far more than in any other first world nation, and too often those who die at the hands of police should not have been subjected to lethal force. Yet almost always those homicides are ruled "justified" because police did the killing and there are layers of protections for police when they use lethal force -- whether or not it's objectively justified.
It's a huge problem and it appears to be growing.
Loretta doesn't want statistics, though. She wants "improved relationships." This goes right back to the earlier police departmental idea that the problem of police killings is one of perception -- PR -- not action. In other words, it's about the propaganda, not about the killing.
That Loretta Lynch apparently buys into this bullshit is troubling, yes? Well, it is to me.
On the other hand, I've seen so many consent decrees with various police departments around the country which seem designed to seek better ways to justify the police killings not reduce them.
This convinced me long ago that the DoJ really has no interest in lowering the rate of police homicide. Its primary interest is in coordinating police departments and police conduct to fit a standard of behavior -- and killing -- that will be "more professional" and gain greater public confidence and respect.
Yes. Well...
Community relations under those circumstances really are more important than statistics on police homicides.
I'm also led to believe that the FBI director doesn't want to have to bother with more complete/accurate statistics. There are real crimes to fight, after all.
No. This won't do.
We need an outcry, loud and sustained, against this attitude by the Top Cops. Stop the bullshit. End the deceit.
No, she proclaims, keeping track of the "minutae" of police-public interactions is less important than "improving" police-community relations...
All righty then.
Statistics on police killings of civilians and civilian deaths in custody have been vastly understated for any number of years. I don't think there's ever been an accurate official count, and the statistics released by FBI are simply ridiculous. That wasn't even noticed beyond a certain community of activists until last year's uproar over the deaths of James Boyd, Michael Brown, Eric Garner and so very many others.
Then a 'national conversation' got underway about the problem of police killings of civilians, and part of that 'conversation' was the lack of accurate and complete official data on the number of civilians killed by police and civilian deaths in custody. Nobody was keeping track because it wasn't required.
Actually it was required. A law was passed in 1996 requiring police departments to report incidents of use of force and deaths in custody, but it was never enforced due to complaints from the field that the costs of reporting were beyond the abilities of many departments to handle. Consequently they couldn't be required to report.
Media stepped into the vacuum, first with a Facebook page called "Killed by Police" begun in May of 2013. This is an effort to track every media report of police killing of civilians and every report of civilian death in custody in almost real time. To date, it is the most comprehensive and up to date listing of civilian deaths at the hands of police in existence. It is not, however, the flashiest, nor is it necessarily the most often cited. That would be the Guardian's "The Counted." In a distant third place would be the Washington Post's data on police shootings of civilians.
I noticed long ago that local media was more than happy to publicize police killings of civilians -- no doubt on the journalistic principle that "if it bleeds it leads". Some of the reports were quite lurid. On the other hand, they almost always stuck with the police version of events, as if there were some Immortal Truth in police statements -- which, of course, always justified their actions in eliminating the threat of yet one more civilian perpetrator.
It became a routine. Someone would be killed by a police officer. Inevitably, their mug shots and criminal history would be promptly released and litany of offenses which led to their death would be read out, almost always including "pointing a gun" or "reaching for waistband" thus causing the officer to "fear for his life and the safety of others" and justifying the discharge of his duty weapon. The suspect/subject subsequently "died" -- exactly how is "under investigation." The officer involved has been put on "standard paid administrative leave."
These reports were sometimes accompanied by dash-cam or body-cam views of the incident, but many times, there was no verification of police reports at all. Media accepted whatever the police said about these killings almost always without question. But that started to change when civilian witness videos became more and more available. Many of these videos showed quite clearly that the police version of events were fraudulent and false. Too many unarmed people, too many innocents were being killed, and police routinely felt comfortable lying about what happened.
Oh.
Police departments saw this discrepancy as primarily a public relations problem. They did not, at least at first, see any problem with their actions. Killings by police were always justified, and the lies and falsehoods that wound up in reports were merely the result of the "fog of battle" -- or what have you.
Police only killed out of absolute necessity, and only as the last resort. Always.
Videos showed that in many cases, police killed their victims on sight or within seconds of the encounter, without bothering to find out what was really happening; many victims were unarmed; some were surrendering or attempting to obey commands barked by officers when they were shot. Others were clearly having psychological issues that prevented immediate compliance, and so they were shot. Over and over again, police were shown escalating situations rather than defusing them, these escalations leading too often to use of deadly force by police. Too many times, police were shown using deadly force where none was called for, often in response to a 911 call from a concerned family member requesting medical intervention.
And of course these videos exposed a glaring racial disparity in police use of force and killings. Police abused and killed black people at a rate far greater than that of whites. It was plain to see. Black people were being shot and killed by police as a matter of course, whereas white folks would often be treated with kid gloves -- no matter if they were armed or even shooting at police. The discrepancy was stark and obvious. And it wasn't just black people; Native Americans, Hispanics, and mentally ill people of any race were being subjected to lethal force as a matter of course.
The rate of killing by police was much higher than had been previously believed due to the significant undercount annually reported by the FBI. The actual death rate at the hands of police is still unknown because many deaths in custody aren't reported. But just those police involved homicides reported in the media were three times the number cited by the FBI in its incomplete -- actually false -- reports.
Now Loretta Lynch is saying we don't really need accurate statistics on the number of deaths caused by police -- as gaining those statistics might-could be a burden on already over-stressed and under-funded/staffed police departments, and we really want to improve relationships with the communities police patrol rather than obsessing on numbers anyway, right?
Good God.
Good freaking God. What is the matter with her?
Crime is at a nearly all-time low. There are more people in jail and prison in this country than in any other nation in the world. Well over a thousand people die at the hands of police in this country every year, far more than in any other first world nation, and too often those who die at the hands of police should not have been subjected to lethal force. Yet almost always those homicides are ruled "justified" because police did the killing and there are layers of protections for police when they use lethal force -- whether or not it's objectively justified.
It's a huge problem and it appears to be growing.
Loretta doesn't want statistics, though. She wants "improved relationships." This goes right back to the earlier police departmental idea that the problem of police killings is one of perception -- PR -- not action. In other words, it's about the propaganda, not about the killing.
That Loretta Lynch apparently buys into this bullshit is troubling, yes? Well, it is to me.
On the other hand, I've seen so many consent decrees with various police departments around the country which seem designed to seek better ways to justify the police killings not reduce them.
This convinced me long ago that the DoJ really has no interest in lowering the rate of police homicide. Its primary interest is in coordinating police departments and police conduct to fit a standard of behavior -- and killing -- that will be "more professional" and gain greater public confidence and respect.
Yes. Well...
Community relations under those circumstances really are more important than statistics on police homicides.
I'm also led to believe that the FBI director doesn't want to have to bother with more complete/accurate statistics. There are real crimes to fight, after all.
No. This won't do.
We need an outcry, loud and sustained, against this attitude by the Top Cops. Stop the bullshit. End the deceit.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Again -- Patrick Lynch is All Butt-Hurt and Killer Kop Kompetition Comes to ABQ
What a week.
When James Blake, retired tennis pro, was ignominiously tackled by a wilding NYPD detective and trussed up like a roast while he waited for a ride to Flushing Meadows the other day there was something of an outcry about, oh I don't know, police brutality and excessive use of force. Yet again. NYPD has earned quite a reputation for targeting black and brown men for, shall we say, scrutiny, on the presumption of guilt just because. It's a quality of life issue, right?
At any rate, Blake was trussed up and left sitting there on the sidewalk while a plain clothes detective, who apparently did not identify himself to Blake at any time, went about his business of curbing identity theft or whatever assignment he was on until such time as another officer told him that he had collared the wrong man.
Oh.
Blake was let go. But he made one unholy stink about what had happened to him, and before you knew it, the Mayor and Police Commissioner of New York City were holding news conferences to say, "Ooops, sorry." Well, sort of.
The problem here is not that the wrong man was targeted and detained. Nor is it even institutional racism (although pretty obviously enters into it.) The problem is that anyone could have this happen to them at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, and most victims would never receive an apology, even one as tepid as Blake received. They would be treated as if they were criminals of the worst order, and they would be expected to accept this treatment as routine police practice. If they didn't like it, there were procedures they could follow to file a complaint, which more than likely would be ignored, or if not, it would be sent to a sham CRB which would find that the officer acted "within policy," ergo, the complaint would not be sustained.
This happens all the time all over the country. When there is an outcry, as there has been with the James Blake matter, there may be some public contrition or even a monetary payout, but little or nothing will change.
In this case, the public outcry included a scathing editorial in the New York Times which called for the firing of the officer involved and a complete overhaul of NYPD's practices. Oh my.
This led directly to today's statement by the PBA President Patrick Lynch, who never misses an opportunity to whine and kvetch about how misunderstood the brave and true officers of the NYPD are, so leave them alone!!!!!
What a whiny little pissant.
But then, that's what's come to be expected from police officer union heads. They cannot believe there are real problems with policing in this country, one of them being a first option resort to violence.
Speaking of, Albuquerque hosts the umpteenth annual Killer Kop Kompetititon this weekend.
Last year, there was a media firestorm about it. This year, not so much. In fact, I can't find anything online about it. Interesting. Well, helpfully, the NRA has an extended pdf (54 pages) providing all sorts of detail about the excitement soon to engulf the culture of violent policing.
There will be a march and protest at the hotel where the killer kops are staying this Saturday, sponsored and organized by the Peace and Justice Center. I'd like to think there will be a big turnout, but somehow I doubt it.
Once James Boyd's killers were charged and eventually, more than a year later, indicted (and are now out on their own recognizance until the trial next August, yet another year gone by) and once James Boyd's family settled their lawsuit against the city of Albuquerque the public anger level declined noticeably. The Albuquerque Police Department has instituted a number of reforms and has held off shooting suspects quite as often as they once did. Even though Albuquerque still hosts the Killer Kop Kompetition, the likelihood that APD will shoot and kill you has been severely curtailed.
As for those hundreds of other po-po gathering to get their kill on, who knows? The rate of police killings has actually increased this year, despite the fact that violent crime is at an all time low. Police forces all over the country have convinced themselves that the public is conducting a "war on police" -- a war for which there is no evidence at all, inasmuch as the likelihood of a cop being killed by a bad guy is close to nonexistent.
People know that Patrick Lynch has serious personal issues that should be addressed outside his duties.
But then that would be true of many cops, wouldn't it?
When James Blake, retired tennis pro, was ignominiously tackled by a wilding NYPD detective and trussed up like a roast while he waited for a ride to Flushing Meadows the other day there was something of an outcry about, oh I don't know, police brutality and excessive use of force. Yet again. NYPD has earned quite a reputation for targeting black and brown men for, shall we say, scrutiny, on the presumption of guilt just because. It's a quality of life issue, right?
At any rate, Blake was trussed up and left sitting there on the sidewalk while a plain clothes detective, who apparently did not identify himself to Blake at any time, went about his business of curbing identity theft or whatever assignment he was on until such time as another officer told him that he had collared the wrong man.
Oh.
Blake was let go. But he made one unholy stink about what had happened to him, and before you knew it, the Mayor and Police Commissioner of New York City were holding news conferences to say, "Ooops, sorry." Well, sort of.
The problem here is not that the wrong man was targeted and detained. Nor is it even institutional racism (although pretty obviously enters into it.) The problem is that anyone could have this happen to them at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, and most victims would never receive an apology, even one as tepid as Blake received. They would be treated as if they were criminals of the worst order, and they would be expected to accept this treatment as routine police practice. If they didn't like it, there were procedures they could follow to file a complaint, which more than likely would be ignored, or if not, it would be sent to a sham CRB which would find that the officer acted "within policy," ergo, the complaint would not be sustained.
This happens all the time all over the country. When there is an outcry, as there has been with the James Blake matter, there may be some public contrition or even a monetary payout, but little or nothing will change.
In this case, the public outcry included a scathing editorial in the New York Times which called for the firing of the officer involved and a complete overhaul of NYPD's practices. Oh my.
This led directly to today's statement by the PBA President Patrick Lynch, who never misses an opportunity to whine and kvetch about how misunderstood the brave and true officers of the NYPD are, so leave them alone!!!!!
What a whiny little pissant.
But then, that's what's come to be expected from police officer union heads. They cannot believe there are real problems with policing in this country, one of them being a first option resort to violence.
Speaking of, Albuquerque hosts the umpteenth annual Killer Kop Kompetititon this weekend.
Last year, there was a media firestorm about it. This year, not so much. In fact, I can't find anything online about it. Interesting. Well, helpfully, the NRA has an extended pdf (54 pages) providing all sorts of detail about the excitement soon to engulf the culture of violent policing.
There will be a march and protest at the hotel where the killer kops are staying this Saturday, sponsored and organized by the Peace and Justice Center. I'd like to think there will be a big turnout, but somehow I doubt it.
Once James Boyd's killers were charged and eventually, more than a year later, indicted (and are now out on their own recognizance until the trial next August, yet another year gone by) and once James Boyd's family settled their lawsuit against the city of Albuquerque the public anger level declined noticeably. The Albuquerque Police Department has instituted a number of reforms and has held off shooting suspects quite as often as they once did. Even though Albuquerque still hosts the Killer Kop Kompetition, the likelihood that APD will shoot and kill you has been severely curtailed.
As for those hundreds of other po-po gathering to get their kill on, who knows? The rate of police killings has actually increased this year, despite the fact that violent crime is at an all time low. Police forces all over the country have convinced themselves that the public is conducting a "war on police" -- a war for which there is no evidence at all, inasmuch as the likelihood of a cop being killed by a bad guy is close to nonexistent.
People know that Patrick Lynch has serious personal issues that should be addressed outside his duties.
But then that would be true of many cops, wouldn't it?
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
What's the Matter With Vallejo, and How Do You Fix It?
When I saw this story from March the other day while checking out Twit feeds from DeRay or Shaun King, I was gobsmacked. A single police officer has shot and killed three people under less than stellar circumstances and said officer is promoted to detective.
There have been demonstrations, quite a few of them, but the city on San Pablo Bay is not exactly up in arms about the rash of killings by this one officer, and the city administration is content to simply pull the veil over its actions and the actions of police in the hopes that soon enough passions will die down and business as usual will continue.
It's a mess, one of those typical messes that were once completely routine, and the reason why in so many cases, absolutely nothing was done to correct a system of policing that relied on brutality, violence and random lethal acts to maintain "order."
Since the protests began in Albuquerque last year and spread nationwide after the execution of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO in August, "business as usual" has been more and more difficult to maintain, but at the same time, police brutality, violence, and random killing seems to have increased rather than decreaed, and more and more, the media is focusing with utter horror on the very rare incidents of police encountering lethal force.
In other words, from a media perspective, it's still OK for civilians to be mowed down in their multitudes -- so long as it can be shown that they "deserve it" -- but it's horrific whenever a police officer meets a mortal fate in an encounter with a civilian.
Sigh. Plus ça change....
After all, a police officer's primary responsibility -- his job as it were -- is to go home to his family each night, right?
If a few no-account scum have to die in order for that to happen, so. be. it.
End of story.
People believe this. They repeat it all the time. They seem to have no idea at all that people do not have to die at the hands of the police, that the officer's job is not to "go home to his family each night," or the killing has to stop -- and it can stop.
I've said before that sometimes the daily stories of police killings become ends in themselves, a kind of cop-porn/death-porn, with no suggestion at all that there might be alternatives to the constant killing. It's like there is a heavy investment in keeping the police killing spree going -- because it sells.
Almost glee at each and every new atrocity; nary a hint that it doesn't have to be that way.
Vallejo is a strange, smallish Bay Area town on the edge of California's San Pablo Bay -- which connects with San Francisco Bay. It once hosted the workers at Mare Island Naval Shipyard. My grandfather (actually, my mother's step-father) worked there during WWII as a machinist helping to build ships sent to the Pacific Theatre. He and my grandmother lived in Vallejo. Both of them died before I was born, so I never had family in Vallejo.
My connection with the town is as a pass-thru place on the way to San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley or wherever the destination may have been in the Bay Area. I did some work there but not much, and I came away from it with an odd sense of disconnection.
The only claim to fame Vallejo has had since the shipyard closed in 1999 (or whenever it was) is an amusement park on the north side of town, one I've never been to, never had an urge to stop at -- though the roller coaster is visible from the freeway, and the highway to Napa and such passes right by the entrance.
I have been to the Solano County Fair at least once, maybe twice. I remember a knot of young cowboys spitting and cussing at the Fair while we enjoyed the livestock exhibits and the musical entertainment. Solano County is one of the areas of California which still can boast some real cowboys...
What I remember from working there briefly in the late-90s/early 2000s is that it was pretty rough edged, and the people tended to be as rough as the town. This was partly because it was one of the few places in the Bay Area where ordinary people could still afford to live, but that was changing fast. Living costs were going up fast, but with the closure of Mare Island, the opportunities to make a living were shrinking for many residents.
This transition was happening in many places in California at the time, and dislocated people were being left to fend for themselves. This led to a contemptuous police attitude toward people who might be on the edge of survival.
And so it seems to have been in Vallejo, where one police officer, Sean Kenny, has shot and killed time after time, in murky circumstances at best, and earned a promotion. Some have speculated that his promotion to detective was a clever way to get him off the street, but who knows?
As the death toll from police killings rises inexorably, it's been noticed that a relative handful of police are responsible for the the bulk of the killing, and in many cases the officers involved are repeat offenders. A pattern is beginning to emerge.
In Albuquerque, we noticed for example that a few officers appeared to be the delegated killers, snipers whose job it was to kill suspects/subjects like James Boyd who refused to comply, or who otherwise complicated policing. Surprisingly -- or maybe not -- their names are often... "Sean."
Apparently this Sean Kenny in Vallejo was the delegated killer sent on calls where lethal force might be called for.
And so he killed, time after time.
And the police department did everything in their power to make sure the public had as little information as possible after the fact -- apparently to tamp down any likelihood of protest.
There were protests nonetheless, but they were (apparently) ineffective. Despite changes in staffing, the police, DA and the city manager's office are still in stonewall mode, simply refusing to provide the public with more than the sketchiest information, much of which is directly contradicted by eyewitnesses -- some of whom were never interviewed by investigators.
When police, DAs, and city managers collude to ensure the public has as little information as possible, it's not accidental. It happens because that's the policy decision made at the top. That decision is often made cynically -- because the "people" are viewed with condescension and contempt -- or it may be because of old-line traditions, "it's always been this way and we see no reason to change things...".
It may be due to a combination of factors. What seemed to have happened in Vallejo is that there was a culture clash between a largely white-rightist police force and city administration on the one hand and a shifting racial and economic demographic on the other made for tensions that authorities believed could only be relieved through use of force.
And so force was used, often and sometimes lethally.
So far as I can tell, it's still being used, frequently and inappropriately. The point being to keep those no-accounts in line.
When the economy of Vallejo collapsed after the closure of Mare Island, the city declared bankruptcy. It was traumatic for the city administration, and that trauma seemed to filter throughout the city's employees, including the police. But I somehow doubt the Vallejo police were ever measurably less violent prior to the trauma of bankruptcy.
Violent policing is a matter of policy. It is what is expected and demanded of officers in the field -- so as to maintain "order," don't you know.
You fix it by changing the policy.
In order to change the policy, you have to convince the Powers That Be that police policies MUST change.
To do that, you have to be a voice the police and the city administration (ie: city manager, not so much elected officials) believe they MUST listen to.
And who would that be? In most cities, it is the city's wealthiest and most financially potent individuals and interests.
They are the ones who tell the city manager what kind of policing they want.
The city manager tells the police chief who tells the rank and file.
And for the most part, they make it so.
The complication is that the wealthy and powerful talk to one another, city managers talk to one another, and police chiefs talk to one another. Sometimes a consensus is formed within each of these circles, and every now and then a consensus forms between them. Suddenly, "change happens." The public doesn't have to force anything into being, it just... is. Nor usually is the public consulted.
Policing policies are changing slowly, city by city, a process that is likely to take a generation or more, but there are also signs that consensus is being sought within the circles and then between them to -- potentially -- radically change policing from its current violent and deadly model to something more socially responsible and culturally sensitive.
Whether that will be any quicker than the city-by-city approach now under way is an open question.
Fixing policing policy in Vallejo is one of hundreds of "fixes" that need to be made. Resistance is certain. Yet overcoming that resistance is necessary.
Once the people at the top are convinced that further resistance is futile, the policies that enable violent policing and over-use of lethal force will change. Often the change comes overnight.
There have been demonstrations, quite a few of them, but the city on San Pablo Bay is not exactly up in arms about the rash of killings by this one officer, and the city administration is content to simply pull the veil over its actions and the actions of police in the hopes that soon enough passions will die down and business as usual will continue.
It's a mess, one of those typical messes that were once completely routine, and the reason why in so many cases, absolutely nothing was done to correct a system of policing that relied on brutality, violence and random lethal acts to maintain "order."
Since the protests began in Albuquerque last year and spread nationwide after the execution of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO in August, "business as usual" has been more and more difficult to maintain, but at the same time, police brutality, violence, and random killing seems to have increased rather than decreaed, and more and more, the media is focusing with utter horror on the very rare incidents of police encountering lethal force.
In other words, from a media perspective, it's still OK for civilians to be mowed down in their multitudes -- so long as it can be shown that they "deserve it" -- but it's horrific whenever a police officer meets a mortal fate in an encounter with a civilian.
Sigh. Plus ça change....
After all, a police officer's primary responsibility -- his job as it were -- is to go home to his family each night, right?
If a few no-account scum have to die in order for that to happen, so. be. it.
End of story.
People believe this. They repeat it all the time. They seem to have no idea at all that people do not have to die at the hands of the police, that the officer's job is not to "go home to his family each night," or the killing has to stop -- and it can stop.
I've said before that sometimes the daily stories of police killings become ends in themselves, a kind of cop-porn/death-porn, with no suggestion at all that there might be alternatives to the constant killing. It's like there is a heavy investment in keeping the police killing spree going -- because it sells.
Almost glee at each and every new atrocity; nary a hint that it doesn't have to be that way.
Vallejo is a strange, smallish Bay Area town on the edge of California's San Pablo Bay -- which connects with San Francisco Bay. It once hosted the workers at Mare Island Naval Shipyard. My grandfather (actually, my mother's step-father) worked there during WWII as a machinist helping to build ships sent to the Pacific Theatre. He and my grandmother lived in Vallejo. Both of them died before I was born, so I never had family in Vallejo.
My connection with the town is as a pass-thru place on the way to San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley or wherever the destination may have been in the Bay Area. I did some work there but not much, and I came away from it with an odd sense of disconnection.
The only claim to fame Vallejo has had since the shipyard closed in 1999 (or whenever it was) is an amusement park on the north side of town, one I've never been to, never had an urge to stop at -- though the roller coaster is visible from the freeway, and the highway to Napa and such passes right by the entrance.
I have been to the Solano County Fair at least once, maybe twice. I remember a knot of young cowboys spitting and cussing at the Fair while we enjoyed the livestock exhibits and the musical entertainment. Solano County is one of the areas of California which still can boast some real cowboys...
What I remember from working there briefly in the late-90s/early 2000s is that it was pretty rough edged, and the people tended to be as rough as the town. This was partly because it was one of the few places in the Bay Area where ordinary people could still afford to live, but that was changing fast. Living costs were going up fast, but with the closure of Mare Island, the opportunities to make a living were shrinking for many residents.
This transition was happening in many places in California at the time, and dislocated people were being left to fend for themselves. This led to a contemptuous police attitude toward people who might be on the edge of survival.
And so it seems to have been in Vallejo, where one police officer, Sean Kenny, has shot and killed time after time, in murky circumstances at best, and earned a promotion. Some have speculated that his promotion to detective was a clever way to get him off the street, but who knows?
As the death toll from police killings rises inexorably, it's been noticed that a relative handful of police are responsible for the the bulk of the killing, and in many cases the officers involved are repeat offenders. A pattern is beginning to emerge.
In Albuquerque, we noticed for example that a few officers appeared to be the delegated killers, snipers whose job it was to kill suspects/subjects like James Boyd who refused to comply, or who otherwise complicated policing. Surprisingly -- or maybe not -- their names are often... "Sean."
Apparently this Sean Kenny in Vallejo was the delegated killer sent on calls where lethal force might be called for.
And so he killed, time after time.
And the police department did everything in their power to make sure the public had as little information as possible after the fact -- apparently to tamp down any likelihood of protest.
There were protests nonetheless, but they were (apparently) ineffective. Despite changes in staffing, the police, DA and the city manager's office are still in stonewall mode, simply refusing to provide the public with more than the sketchiest information, much of which is directly contradicted by eyewitnesses -- some of whom were never interviewed by investigators.
When police, DAs, and city managers collude to ensure the public has as little information as possible, it's not accidental. It happens because that's the policy decision made at the top. That decision is often made cynically -- because the "people" are viewed with condescension and contempt -- or it may be because of old-line traditions, "it's always been this way and we see no reason to change things...".
It may be due to a combination of factors. What seemed to have happened in Vallejo is that there was a culture clash between a largely white-rightist police force and city administration on the one hand and a shifting racial and economic demographic on the other made for tensions that authorities believed could only be relieved through use of force.
And so force was used, often and sometimes lethally.
So far as I can tell, it's still being used, frequently and inappropriately. The point being to keep those no-accounts in line.
When the economy of Vallejo collapsed after the closure of Mare Island, the city declared bankruptcy. It was traumatic for the city administration, and that trauma seemed to filter throughout the city's employees, including the police. But I somehow doubt the Vallejo police were ever measurably less violent prior to the trauma of bankruptcy.
Violent policing is a matter of policy. It is what is expected and demanded of officers in the field -- so as to maintain "order," don't you know.
You fix it by changing the policy.
In order to change the policy, you have to convince the Powers That Be that police policies MUST change.
To do that, you have to be a voice the police and the city administration (ie: city manager, not so much elected officials) believe they MUST listen to.
And who would that be? In most cities, it is the city's wealthiest and most financially potent individuals and interests.
They are the ones who tell the city manager what kind of policing they want.
The city manager tells the police chief who tells the rank and file.
And for the most part, they make it so.
The complication is that the wealthy and powerful talk to one another, city managers talk to one another, and police chiefs talk to one another. Sometimes a consensus is formed within each of these circles, and every now and then a consensus forms between them. Suddenly, "change happens." The public doesn't have to force anything into being, it just... is. Nor usually is the public consulted.
Policing policies are changing slowly, city by city, a process that is likely to take a generation or more, but there are also signs that consensus is being sought within the circles and then between them to -- potentially -- radically change policing from its current violent and deadly model to something more socially responsible and culturally sensitive.
Whether that will be any quicker than the city-by-city approach now under way is an open question.
Fixing policing policy in Vallejo is one of hundreds of "fixes" that need to be made. Resistance is certain. Yet overcoming that resistance is necessary.
Once the people at the top are convinced that further resistance is futile, the policies that enable violent policing and over-use of lethal force will change. Often the change comes overnight.
Friday, June 12, 2015
The Warrior vs the Guardian Cop Mentality
The summer has just begun, but I have little doubt that there will be more incidents like the Mess in McKinney, Texas, that led to the surprisingly swift resignation of officer Eric Casebolt -- who I took to calling "Officer Pissant" -- after release of a video of his absurd and violent behavior toward African American residents and visitors to a community swimming pool at the Craig Ranch North subdivision.
His violence, though shocking to witness, wasn't unusual. Cops tend to be frightened and violent around certain categories of people, particularly if those people are black or brown and/or young. They are considered "offenders" by definition.
Then there is the problem of drug abuse, particularly anabolic steroids, cocaine, and meth, that is said to be rampant among police forces and not unknown in the military.
In this context, Casebolt was acting like a "warrior" where none was called for. Apparently he believed that all the African American youth on the scene were definitionally "offenders" simply because they were there and someone had complained about it.
He manhandled and abused some of them on video, most shockingly a 14-15 year old girl clad only in a bikini who he violently threw to the ground and then tossed around by her hair and her arm as if she were a piece of meat or a sexual object or toy. In fact, many observers commented on the psycho-sexual nature of what he was doing to her, especially once he had her prone and subdued and he was putting his full weight on her back. It was a scene of virtual rape. Unfortunately, that too is part of a "warrior" mentality.
Radley Balko wrote a book called The Rise of the Warrior Cop in which he dramatically details how the militarization of the police in this country has taken place and graphically describes the unconscionable destruction of lives, families and communities that has ensued. I may be ideologically opposed to his prescription (in effect, privatizing police forces -- and letting them do pretty much what they do now, but under corporate rather than government authority) but he has been the one who has made a career out of opposition to the infection of warriorism that has spread throughout American policing, and he has been among the ones who has most frequently pointed out what a problem it is.
I have long pointed to one individual, (Lt Col) Dave Grossman, who has been primarily responsible for promoting and sustaining the warrior-cop mentality based on his crackpot "Killology" theories promoted in his books, seminars and consultancies. And yet, as responsible as he is for so much of the mentality of today's police forces, he's not the only one, not by a long shot. And he only got into the fray with regard to domestic policing (he was a West Point psychologist and military instructor) in response to the spate of school shootings in the late 1990s.
This infection of Warriorism in domestic policing has been raging many a long year, well before the advent of the "active shooter scenario" which has been at the core of police violence in recent years. In some ways, police warriorism goes back to the urban riots of the 1960s and the reaction of police and status quo defenders to the youth rebellion that gave rise to hippies and communitarian solutions to social problems.
Fighting these social change agents in the field, particularly the Negroes who demanded rights and respect and the youth who demanded freedom and liberty, became the primary mission of police forces throughout the land. Whenever they couldn't manage to impose their authority completely, a police riot (such as that outside the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1968) would occur, or if that failed, the National Guard would be called in -- sometimes with tragic results.
The War on Drugs was the key element that led directly to the kind of violent and destructive warrior-policing we see reported practically every day, often with graphic and bloody video accompaniment.
That failed drug war still serves as the basis for violent policing and police warriorism throughout the land. Ending it would be the first step to true reform, but the whole system policing, courts and incarceration has been so corrupted by the various elements of the drug war that there is little likelihood that reform can be accomplished within the same system. The system itself has to be abolished.
In opposition to the warrior mentality of police in the field, more and more thinkers and consultants on the problem of violent policing in this country are adopting the theories of Guardian Policing.
These ideas have begun to take the place of Community Policing theories that were once hailed as a positive solution to the problem of police violence, but which were so quickly corrupted that some observers saw Community Policing (basically flooding designated areas with police who were supposed to "get to know" the community) as causing more problems than it solved.
I would suggest that Guardian Policing has the same -- or even a greater -- risk of corruption, for the ideological basis of it, that a community needs and wants guardians because the community and the people in it are essentially children who cannot take care of themselves, is bogus.
What is needed -- rather than police as warriors or guardians -- is a corps of public servants (which the police were once touted as being) there to assist and aid and enable the public to take care of themselves.
Warrior cops see their proper role as that of an army of occupation set over a resistant population to enforce whatever control they are ordered to with whatever level of force they deem necessary. It leads to mayhem, murder, death and destruction on a daily basis all over this land. The control and enforcement of the warrior-occupation police forces is very often a matter of imposing chaos, not order at all. The violence of the warrior-occupation police forces induces chaos by its nature, and that social chaos becomes the primary feature of warrior-occupied communities. Victims are always blamed, but the recurrence of the basic problem of chaos brought on by the warriors themselves is manifested over and over, very much like the graphic demonstration of the chaotic behavior of (former) Officer Casebolt in McKinney, Texas. He was the chaotic element, he an no one else. His actions induced chaos in what was an otherwise relatively simple situation.
Thankfully no one died. The one young man who was arrested -- seen at the end of the principal video of the incident -- said that the officers who arrested him behaved professionally and that he bit his tongue accidentally as he was submitting to them. He was not, he said, injured by the police who arrested him. I found his praise for the officers who arrested him to be remarkable, but remarkable things have to happen if there is to be fundamental change in the way the US is policed. Charges were dropped against the young man who was arrested, by the way.
The Guardian Cop mentality in contrast to the Warrior Cop would not necessarily apply to this situation, however. What we saw in McKinney was two distinctly different approaches to policing and problem solving, one involving officers in communication with the public -- not as guardians over them but as interested community members interacting with them. The other was simply chaos, violent, and clearly out of control, with which no communication was possible. It may have been an attempt at warriorism but it went very awry.
Seth Stroughtan has written a number of pieces on the problem of Warrior Policing. While his position is that reform is possible and desirable, he is reticent about getting there. On the other hand, a number of alternatives to the seemingly unreformable police departments so prevalent today have been proposed, among them "Peacekeeper" a simple app that links community based mutual aid providers and citizens.
Decoupling from the dangerous and destructive policing that has led to so much outcry is necessary. How to do it is still being worked out, but alternatives are being tested, and more and more communities are taking steps to protect themselves from police.
The time will come when there will be no alternative...
His violence, though shocking to witness, wasn't unusual. Cops tend to be frightened and violent around certain categories of people, particularly if those people are black or brown and/or young. They are considered "offenders" by definition.
Then there is the problem of drug abuse, particularly anabolic steroids, cocaine, and meth, that is said to be rampant among police forces and not unknown in the military.
In this context, Casebolt was acting like a "warrior" where none was called for. Apparently he believed that all the African American youth on the scene were definitionally "offenders" simply because they were there and someone had complained about it.
He manhandled and abused some of them on video, most shockingly a 14-15 year old girl clad only in a bikini who he violently threw to the ground and then tossed around by her hair and her arm as if she were a piece of meat or a sexual object or toy. In fact, many observers commented on the psycho-sexual nature of what he was doing to her, especially once he had her prone and subdued and he was putting his full weight on her back. It was a scene of virtual rape. Unfortunately, that too is part of a "warrior" mentality.
Radley Balko wrote a book called The Rise of the Warrior Cop in which he dramatically details how the militarization of the police in this country has taken place and graphically describes the unconscionable destruction of lives, families and communities that has ensued. I may be ideologically opposed to his prescription (in effect, privatizing police forces -- and letting them do pretty much what they do now, but under corporate rather than government authority) but he has been the one who has made a career out of opposition to the infection of warriorism that has spread throughout American policing, and he has been among the ones who has most frequently pointed out what a problem it is.
I have long pointed to one individual, (Lt Col) Dave Grossman, who has been primarily responsible for promoting and sustaining the warrior-cop mentality based on his crackpot "Killology" theories promoted in his books, seminars and consultancies. And yet, as responsible as he is for so much of the mentality of today's police forces, he's not the only one, not by a long shot. And he only got into the fray with regard to domestic policing (he was a West Point psychologist and military instructor) in response to the spate of school shootings in the late 1990s.
This infection of Warriorism in domestic policing has been raging many a long year, well before the advent of the "active shooter scenario" which has been at the core of police violence in recent years. In some ways, police warriorism goes back to the urban riots of the 1960s and the reaction of police and status quo defenders to the youth rebellion that gave rise to hippies and communitarian solutions to social problems.
Fighting these social change agents in the field, particularly the Negroes who demanded rights and respect and the youth who demanded freedom and liberty, became the primary mission of police forces throughout the land. Whenever they couldn't manage to impose their authority completely, a police riot (such as that outside the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1968) would occur, or if that failed, the National Guard would be called in -- sometimes with tragic results.
The War on Drugs was the key element that led directly to the kind of violent and destructive warrior-policing we see reported practically every day, often with graphic and bloody video accompaniment.
That failed drug war still serves as the basis for violent policing and police warriorism throughout the land. Ending it would be the first step to true reform, but the whole system policing, courts and incarceration has been so corrupted by the various elements of the drug war that there is little likelihood that reform can be accomplished within the same system. The system itself has to be abolished.
In opposition to the warrior mentality of police in the field, more and more thinkers and consultants on the problem of violent policing in this country are adopting the theories of Guardian Policing.
These ideas have begun to take the place of Community Policing theories that were once hailed as a positive solution to the problem of police violence, but which were so quickly corrupted that some observers saw Community Policing (basically flooding designated areas with police who were supposed to "get to know" the community) as causing more problems than it solved.
I would suggest that Guardian Policing has the same -- or even a greater -- risk of corruption, for the ideological basis of it, that a community needs and wants guardians because the community and the people in it are essentially children who cannot take care of themselves, is bogus.
What is needed -- rather than police as warriors or guardians -- is a corps of public servants (which the police were once touted as being) there to assist and aid and enable the public to take care of themselves.
Warrior cops see their proper role as that of an army of occupation set over a resistant population to enforce whatever control they are ordered to with whatever level of force they deem necessary. It leads to mayhem, murder, death and destruction on a daily basis all over this land. The control and enforcement of the warrior-occupation police forces is very often a matter of imposing chaos, not order at all. The violence of the warrior-occupation police forces induces chaos by its nature, and that social chaos becomes the primary feature of warrior-occupied communities. Victims are always blamed, but the recurrence of the basic problem of chaos brought on by the warriors themselves is manifested over and over, very much like the graphic demonstration of the chaotic behavior of (former) Officer Casebolt in McKinney, Texas. He was the chaotic element, he an no one else. His actions induced chaos in what was an otherwise relatively simple situation.
Thankfully no one died. The one young man who was arrested -- seen at the end of the principal video of the incident -- said that the officers who arrested him behaved professionally and that he bit his tongue accidentally as he was submitting to them. He was not, he said, injured by the police who arrested him. I found his praise for the officers who arrested him to be remarkable, but remarkable things have to happen if there is to be fundamental change in the way the US is policed. Charges were dropped against the young man who was arrested, by the way.
The Guardian Cop mentality in contrast to the Warrior Cop would not necessarily apply to this situation, however. What we saw in McKinney was two distinctly different approaches to policing and problem solving, one involving officers in communication with the public -- not as guardians over them but as interested community members interacting with them. The other was simply chaos, violent, and clearly out of control, with which no communication was possible. It may have been an attempt at warriorism but it went very awry.
Seth Stroughtan has written a number of pieces on the problem of Warrior Policing. While his position is that reform is possible and desirable, he is reticent about getting there. On the other hand, a number of alternatives to the seemingly unreformable police departments so prevalent today have been proposed, among them "Peacekeeper" a simple app that links community based mutual aid providers and citizens.
Decoupling from the dangerous and destructive policing that has led to so much outcry is necessary. How to do it is still being worked out, but alternatives are being tested, and more and more communities are taking steps to protect themselves from police.
The time will come when there will be no alternative...
Friday, April 10, 2015
We've Got to Get Beyond the "National Conversation" About Police Violence to Action
The United States has been engaged in a "National Conversation" about police violence and murder since last August when Ferguson, MO police officer Darren Wilson gunned down an unarmed black youth named Michael Brown.
This "conversation" has been driven and moderated by the media, a media which is fully in the hands of the Powers That Be and which determines the course of "discussion." The People are permitted to participate in the "discussion" so long as they adhere to the rules set by the media moderators. When they operate outside those rules, they are ignored, and so they are not part of the "discussion."
I've wondered why, during the course of this ongoing, rolling "National Conversation" the initial police killing and protests in Albuquerque in March of last year, in which an illegally camping mentally ill man named James Boyd was ruthlessly gunned down by two APD snipers, has been all but disappeared from the "discussion."
The issue of police violence and murder became nationalized due to the killing of James Boyd last year, but you hardly ever hear about it these days, and it isn't part of the overall "discussion." The activists who were determined to cause fundamental changes in the way the police in Albuquerque behave -- and so enable Albuquerque to become a model for police reform in the rest of the country -- have largely either shut up about it or have moved on to other projects.
Meanwhile, the "National Conversation" about police violence continues, as more and more Americans are killed by police -- still at the consistent rate of about three a day -- and hundreds and hundreds are assaulted and abused as part of routine policing. When these incidents of violence and death are particularly egregious and caught on video, there is a momentary shift in the "conversation" to focus on this or that incident. But on the whole, little seems to change. Police violence and killing continues as the "conversation" rolls on.
The "conversation" is in essence a stalling tactic used by elites and their allies to ensure that the status quo is maintained -- or that the appearance of the status quo is maintained while adjustments in the way Power is maintained are made behind the scenes. The "conversation" exists primarily to divert attention from the necessity for Action.
Two recent incidents of police violence have caused slight shifts in the "conversation." In one, the video of the killing of Walter Scott in North Charleston, SC, caused a remarkable action by the local PTB: they arrested the officer who killed Scott and charged him with murder one, an almost unheard of action against a police officer in the performance of his duties.
In the other, the apprehension and savage beating by sheriff's deputies of a man who fell off a stolen horse in the hills above Apple Valley, CA, has caused the typical action of police departments when confronted with video evidence of apparent misconduct: an acknowledgement that the "video is disturbing" (ie: the video is disturbing, not the actions of the deputies caught on video), and the incident will be "thoroughly investigated," which typically means exoneration of the officers involved in the incident -- due to internal, unknown and unknowable policies and procedures that authorize such violence against non-resisting suspects. Happens all the time.
Sadly, in the Apple Valley incident, the local ACLU issued a mealy-mouthed and useless statement acknowledging the authorization of the use of force by law enforcement -- an authorization that may or may not have been exceeded in this case. There was no real attempt by the local ACLU to hold police accountable for the violence documented in the video. Just as a side note, San Bernardino County was the site of sheriffs deputies burning alive Christopher Dorner who dared to point out the inherent racism and violence of the LAPD and took matters into his own hands to settle some scores after he was dismissed from the force.
The tendency in the "National Conversation" about police violence is to cast the problem/issue in racial terms, even though the issue is (IMHO) more a matter of class than race. Race enters into the picture through class, not independently, at least for the most part. Yes there are racists in police departments all over the country, and some of those departments operate from a racist basis. But the focus on race to the exclusion of class or other aspects of modern policing suggests that the issues of police violence and murder can only be solved by solving the inherent racism of American society (as teacherken suggests in this essay at dKos.)
Well, no. That's a further distraction -- perhaps one of the worst going -- because "solving" the inherent racism of American society is not something that can or will happen anytime soon, if ever. In fact, racism is so deeply ingrained in American consciousness and subconscious that it probably can't be solved short of divine intervention.
What can be solved and what must be solved through persistent action is the problem of police violence and murder which seem to be universal in American policing -- but aren't quite.
I mentioned the uproar in Albuquerque that followed the egregious police killing of James Boyd in March of last year, and how that uproar seems to have dissipated or disappeared. Something else has changed, though. The killing stopped. Well, mostly stopped. There has been one killing by APD since last July. I believe there have been three killings by Bernalillo County deputies in the unincorporated areas, and two by State Police in the outlying areas since last July. Though it is still too high, that's a remarkable reduction in the rate of police killings compared to previous periods, and it happened because of concerted public action and the determination of certain segments of the Powers That Be to conduct a thoroughgoing reform of the Albuquerque Police Department's policies regarding violence and use of lethal force.
The first thing to do was to stop the killing.
It really is that simple. The order must go out to STOP THE KILLING.
And then STOP THE VIOLENCE.
Both of these actions can be taken almost instantaneously if there is the will -- and the order -- to do so. It does not mean that the inherent racism of American society is cured or even addressed. But it does mean that the violence and killing perpetrated by police (which is one aspect of inherent racism) is curbed, and at least for a while, the other social and cultural problems can be dealt with.
The actions that caused such a steep reduction in police killings in Albuquerque are mirrored in some other cities such as Oakland, CA. The lesson is that the police can unilaterally stop killing and stop being violent assholes, and the world won't come to an end, the Apocalypse isn't any more nigh than it ever was.
The further lesson is that police violence and killing simply isn't necessary -- let alone desirable -- for a civil society to function. When police are responsible for a double digit percentage of homicides in this country (as they are), then a big part of the problem is the police themselves, not the criminal element they are supposedly protecting the rest of us from.
The public needs to mobilize against police violence and murder, but in some ways the "conversation" prevents mobilization. It's by design, of course. Those who benefit from the status quo of violent policing and all of its many subsidiary aspects, including mass incarceration and the criminalization of whole categories of the population, will do practically anything to prevent the disruption of that status quo. But at times and in certain places, the People combined with the operators of the structures of Power can not only disrupt the status quo but institute a new status quo in which official violence on the part of police is curbed and the constant litany of killing by police is suppressed.
Those who benefit from the status quo include the media -- which is driving and moderating the "National Conversation" about violent policing. It's time to get beyond the "conversation" to action, and if that means that protests intensify and actions become inconveniences, so be it.
The killing by police must stop.
The violence by police must be curbed.
It's really that simple.
This "conversation" has been driven and moderated by the media, a media which is fully in the hands of the Powers That Be and which determines the course of "discussion." The People are permitted to participate in the "discussion" so long as they adhere to the rules set by the media moderators. When they operate outside those rules, they are ignored, and so they are not part of the "discussion."
I've wondered why, during the course of this ongoing, rolling "National Conversation" the initial police killing and protests in Albuquerque in March of last year, in which an illegally camping mentally ill man named James Boyd was ruthlessly gunned down by two APD snipers, has been all but disappeared from the "discussion."
The issue of police violence and murder became nationalized due to the killing of James Boyd last year, but you hardly ever hear about it these days, and it isn't part of the overall "discussion." The activists who were determined to cause fundamental changes in the way the police in Albuquerque behave -- and so enable Albuquerque to become a model for police reform in the rest of the country -- have largely either shut up about it or have moved on to other projects.
Meanwhile, the "National Conversation" about police violence continues, as more and more Americans are killed by police -- still at the consistent rate of about three a day -- and hundreds and hundreds are assaulted and abused as part of routine policing. When these incidents of violence and death are particularly egregious and caught on video, there is a momentary shift in the "conversation" to focus on this or that incident. But on the whole, little seems to change. Police violence and killing continues as the "conversation" rolls on.
The "conversation" is in essence a stalling tactic used by elites and their allies to ensure that the status quo is maintained -- or that the appearance of the status quo is maintained while adjustments in the way Power is maintained are made behind the scenes. The "conversation" exists primarily to divert attention from the necessity for Action.
Two recent incidents of police violence have caused slight shifts in the "conversation." In one, the video of the killing of Walter Scott in North Charleston, SC, caused a remarkable action by the local PTB: they arrested the officer who killed Scott and charged him with murder one, an almost unheard of action against a police officer in the performance of his duties.
In the other, the apprehension and savage beating by sheriff's deputies of a man who fell off a stolen horse in the hills above Apple Valley, CA, has caused the typical action of police departments when confronted with video evidence of apparent misconduct: an acknowledgement that the "video is disturbing" (ie: the video is disturbing, not the actions of the deputies caught on video), and the incident will be "thoroughly investigated," which typically means exoneration of the officers involved in the incident -- due to internal, unknown and unknowable policies and procedures that authorize such violence against non-resisting suspects. Happens all the time.
Sadly, in the Apple Valley incident, the local ACLU issued a mealy-mouthed and useless statement acknowledging the authorization of the use of force by law enforcement -- an authorization that may or may not have been exceeded in this case. There was no real attempt by the local ACLU to hold police accountable for the violence documented in the video. Just as a side note, San Bernardino County was the site of sheriffs deputies burning alive Christopher Dorner who dared to point out the inherent racism and violence of the LAPD and took matters into his own hands to settle some scores after he was dismissed from the force.
The tendency in the "National Conversation" about police violence is to cast the problem/issue in racial terms, even though the issue is (IMHO) more a matter of class than race. Race enters into the picture through class, not independently, at least for the most part. Yes there are racists in police departments all over the country, and some of those departments operate from a racist basis. But the focus on race to the exclusion of class or other aspects of modern policing suggests that the issues of police violence and murder can only be solved by solving the inherent racism of American society (as teacherken suggests in this essay at dKos.)
Well, no. That's a further distraction -- perhaps one of the worst going -- because "solving" the inherent racism of American society is not something that can or will happen anytime soon, if ever. In fact, racism is so deeply ingrained in American consciousness and subconscious that it probably can't be solved short of divine intervention.
What can be solved and what must be solved through persistent action is the problem of police violence and murder which seem to be universal in American policing -- but aren't quite.
I mentioned the uproar in Albuquerque that followed the egregious police killing of James Boyd in March of last year, and how that uproar seems to have dissipated or disappeared. Something else has changed, though. The killing stopped. Well, mostly stopped. There has been one killing by APD since last July. I believe there have been three killings by Bernalillo County deputies in the unincorporated areas, and two by State Police in the outlying areas since last July. Though it is still too high, that's a remarkable reduction in the rate of police killings compared to previous periods, and it happened because of concerted public action and the determination of certain segments of the Powers That Be to conduct a thoroughgoing reform of the Albuquerque Police Department's policies regarding violence and use of lethal force.
The first thing to do was to stop the killing.
It really is that simple. The order must go out to STOP THE KILLING.
And then STOP THE VIOLENCE.
Both of these actions can be taken almost instantaneously if there is the will -- and the order -- to do so. It does not mean that the inherent racism of American society is cured or even addressed. But it does mean that the violence and killing perpetrated by police (which is one aspect of inherent racism) is curbed, and at least for a while, the other social and cultural problems can be dealt with.
The actions that caused such a steep reduction in police killings in Albuquerque are mirrored in some other cities such as Oakland, CA. The lesson is that the police can unilaterally stop killing and stop being violent assholes, and the world won't come to an end, the Apocalypse isn't any more nigh than it ever was.
The further lesson is that police violence and killing simply isn't necessary -- let alone desirable -- for a civil society to function. When police are responsible for a double digit percentage of homicides in this country (as they are), then a big part of the problem is the police themselves, not the criminal element they are supposedly protecting the rest of us from.
The public needs to mobilize against police violence and murder, but in some ways the "conversation" prevents mobilization. It's by design, of course. Those who benefit from the status quo of violent policing and all of its many subsidiary aspects, including mass incarceration and the criminalization of whole categories of the population, will do practically anything to prevent the disruption of that status quo. But at times and in certain places, the People combined with the operators of the structures of Power can not only disrupt the status quo but institute a new status quo in which official violence on the part of police is curbed and the constant litany of killing by police is suppressed.
Those who benefit from the status quo include the media -- which is driving and moderating the "National Conversation" about violent policing. It's time to get beyond the "conversation" to action, and if that means that protests intensify and actions become inconveniences, so be it.
The killing by police must stop.
The violence by police must be curbed.
It's really that simple.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Updated Blue on Blue -- and Perez and Sandy Are Charged With Murder
Well. This is really a mess. Though it is getting interesting... Kari Brandenburg, the Bernalillo County DA is charging the two officers who shot and killed James Boyd in March with an open count of murder.
According to the various highly incomplete accounts of the blue on blue shooting at the McDonald's on Central near Tramway in Albuquerque the other day, two suspects in a drug sting were riding in a Lexus driven by an undercover detective named Holly Garcia; sitting behind her was an undercover detective named Jacob Grant. The suspects were in the front and rear passenger seats. Garcia drove the car to the EconoLodge next to the McDonald's where one of the suspects obtained $60 worth of methamphetamine and sold it to one of the undercover detectives. Garcia then drove to the McDonald's parking lot and signaled the waiting undercover detectives to make the bust.
One of the waiting detectives was Lt. Greg Brachle. For reasons unknown, he apparently opened fire, severely wounding Jacob Grant and grazing Holly Garcia (as best as can be pieced together from the various reports at this point. The story is liable to change as more information is made public.) The suspects were apprehended and arrested by other detectives without incident, and while it is unknown whether the suspects were armed, they were not charged with any weapons offenses.
Well, this is all just too bizarre. Some are speculating that Grant was a target for assassination by Brachle, but why that should be so is anyone's guess, and it could involve any number of factors. On the other hand, there are reports that Brachle was the lead detective but did not attend the final operational meetings for the sting and may not have been aware that Grant was going to be in the car. He may have simply seen a gun and opened fire instinctively as officers so often do. The shooting may have therefore been yet another Tragic Accident.
Too many unknowns at this point.
But it is interesting that reports last month that Kari Brandenburg would file open murder charges against Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy for killing James Boyd last March are true.
Brandenburg has filed charges -- "informations" -- with the court today, and there will be a preliminary hearing open to the public to determine whether there probable cause to go forward with a trial.
The judge will make the determination. The judge could dismiss the charges at the preliminary hearing, or could send the matter to trial.
An open count of murder means there could be a verdict of anything between voluntary manslaughter and first degree murder. Of course there could also be an acquittal.
Few are convinced that 1) Brandenburg will vigorously pursue this case, 2) there will be a guilty verdict on any charge, 3) or even that the case will go to trial.
On the other hand, if it does go to trial, it is almost certain that Brandenburg or her deputy DA will put James Boyd on trial, as we've seen DAs do in similar cases by trying the victim rather than the killer (cf: Mike Brown) in front of grand juries.
Brandenburg, for her part, has never once ruled a killing by APD to be unjustified. So there is understandable skepticism that this gambit -- yet another highly unusual one in such cases -- will result in justice for James Boyd.
We'll see.
In a further interesting development, the Albuquerque Journal is reporting that homicides in 2014 were way down. Hm. How could that be given the fact that APD stopped killing people in July? Boggles the mind, it does.
According to the various highly incomplete accounts of the blue on blue shooting at the McDonald's on Central near Tramway in Albuquerque the other day, two suspects in a drug sting were riding in a Lexus driven by an undercover detective named Holly Garcia; sitting behind her was an undercover detective named Jacob Grant. The suspects were in the front and rear passenger seats. Garcia drove the car to the EconoLodge next to the McDonald's where one of the suspects obtained $60 worth of methamphetamine and sold it to one of the undercover detectives. Garcia then drove to the McDonald's parking lot and signaled the waiting undercover detectives to make the bust.
One of the waiting detectives was Lt. Greg Brachle. For reasons unknown, he apparently opened fire, severely wounding Jacob Grant and grazing Holly Garcia (as best as can be pieced together from the various reports at this point. The story is liable to change as more information is made public.) The suspects were apprehended and arrested by other detectives without incident, and while it is unknown whether the suspects were armed, they were not charged with any weapons offenses.
Well, this is all just too bizarre. Some are speculating that Grant was a target for assassination by Brachle, but why that should be so is anyone's guess, and it could involve any number of factors. On the other hand, there are reports that Brachle was the lead detective but did not attend the final operational meetings for the sting and may not have been aware that Grant was going to be in the car. He may have simply seen a gun and opened fire instinctively as officers so often do. The shooting may have therefore been yet another Tragic Accident.
Too many unknowns at this point.
But it is interesting that reports last month that Kari Brandenburg would file open murder charges against Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy for killing James Boyd last March are true.
Brandenburg has filed charges -- "informations" -- with the court today, and there will be a preliminary hearing open to the public to determine whether there probable cause to go forward with a trial.
The judge will make the determination. The judge could dismiss the charges at the preliminary hearing, or could send the matter to trial.
An open count of murder means there could be a verdict of anything between voluntary manslaughter and first degree murder. Of course there could also be an acquittal.
Few are convinced that 1) Brandenburg will vigorously pursue this case, 2) there will be a guilty verdict on any charge, 3) or even that the case will go to trial.
On the other hand, if it does go to trial, it is almost certain that Brandenburg or her deputy DA will put James Boyd on trial, as we've seen DAs do in similar cases by trying the victim rather than the killer (cf: Mike Brown) in front of grand juries.
Brandenburg, for her part, has never once ruled a killing by APD to be unjustified. So there is understandable skepticism that this gambit -- yet another highly unusual one in such cases -- will result in justice for James Boyd.
We'll see.
In a further interesting development, the Albuquerque Journal is reporting that homicides in 2014 were way down. Hm. How could that be given the fact that APD stopped killing people in July? Boggles the mind, it does.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
"Darren" Wants To Teach?
Right.
According to news reports, Darren Wilson, the Ferguson PD officer who shot and killed Mike Brown on that hot August day -- a day that doesn't seem so very long ago but instead seems ever present in our consciences -- has officially resigned from the Department and has said that he would love to "teach use of force..."
All righty then.
This is just more insanity.
Supposedly, "Darren" (that's what Mike Brown's mother calls him) was paid something north of $500,000 for that ridiculous and heavily coached soft-ball interview he did on ABC, and the fundraisers held for his unneeded legal defense raised well more than that. He can obviously go on the same inspirational-lecture circuit that (Lt. Col.) Dave Grossman is on. They probably have the same agent, may even be collaborating on topics and presentation. I wouldn't be at all surprised.
These people need to stay together and support one another after all, or the Thugs will win, no?
Jeebus.
"Teaching" use of force, right. How to kill black men and get away with it each and every time. Gotcha.
I'm sure there will be quite an audience for that little gab-fest.
According to news reports, Darren Wilson, the Ferguson PD officer who shot and killed Mike Brown on that hot August day -- a day that doesn't seem so very long ago but instead seems ever present in our consciences -- has officially resigned from the Department and has said that he would love to "teach use of force..."
All righty then.
This is just more insanity.
Supposedly, "Darren" (that's what Mike Brown's mother calls him) was paid something north of $500,000 for that ridiculous and heavily coached soft-ball interview he did on ABC, and the fundraisers held for his unneeded legal defense raised well more than that. He can obviously go on the same inspirational-lecture circuit that (Lt. Col.) Dave Grossman is on. They probably have the same agent, may even be collaborating on topics and presentation. I wouldn't be at all surprised.
These people need to stay together and support one another after all, or the Thugs will win, no?
Jeebus.
"Teaching" use of force, right. How to kill black men and get away with it each and every time. Gotcha.
I'm sure there will be quite an audience for that little gab-fest.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
So. Why The Difference?
A black man, unarmed, reportedly surrendering, is shot down and killed by police in the streets of Ferguson, MO; a black man, standing still, holding an air rifle from the store shelves and talking on the phone to the mother of his children is shot down and killed by police in the Walmart in Beavercreek, OH; a black man in custody and handcuffed, lying prone on the ground is shot and killed by police in Los Angeles, CA; a white man, surrendering to police after an hours-long stand off, "armed" with two pocket knives, is shot by police and mortally wounded in Albuquerque, NM; and on and on like this all around the country, day in and day out, to the number of a thousand or more year in and year out.
In Sacramento on Friday, a sheriff's deputy was shot and killed by a suspect who was in the driver's seat of a car which was (apparently) under suspicion by deputies. The deputy's partner fired back at the suspect and may have wounded him, but the suspect and his accomplice successfully fled, attempted one unsuccessful carjacking in which the driver of the other car was shot in the head and wounded, attempted another successful carjacking, then took the pickup truck of a gardener which they drove to Auburn, CA, where another deputy was shot and killed and a third was wounded.
Both suspects were eventually arrested and are now in custody. Apart from the initial returned fire in Sacramento, no other shots were reportedly fired by law enforcement during the massive hours-long manhunt and eventual capture of the suspect and his accomplice -- who turned out to be his wife.
Why the difference?
Since I learned about this incident in California yesterday, I've repeatedly asked myself that question, "why?" So many suspects are simply shot and killed by police execution-style, yet in this case, it didn't happen when it well might have, especially while the police in Auburn were in the process of capturing the suspect in a home they had entered.
A key may be in the statement of Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner,
Yet here is a case in which two deputies were killed, another and a civilian wounded, and suspects are taken into custody without killing them. How... odd.
I've thought about why, and I've wondered, "Did they think the suspects were white?" Yes, so often, race enters into the equation, with black and brown men subjected to "street justice" by police far more often than white men are (though it's wrong to assume white men are immune. They are not.) "Were the suspects white?" The man involved has been identified as a Mexican national, but no pictures have been released (apart from a distant one as he is being transported to the hospital for assessment and treatment of his wound(s). It's impossible to say from that picture whether the suspect appears to be white. But being a Mexican national does not automatically mean he is brown. It's not clear what race his wife is, but it's likely she is white (the Salt Lake City origin of the couple indicates as much, but again, there is no certainty as yet.)
Would perceived whiteness have been a reason not to kill them? Perhaps, though I doubt it.
The man was reportedly armed with an AR-15 which he was not particularly hesitant to use, and the woman was reported to have a pistol in her purse. Whether she ever brandished or used it, I don't know, but she is charged with carjacking and attempted murder, so possibly she did use her gun, if only to show it.
Were police hesitant to use lethal force against them because they knew that at least one of them was armed with an automatic rifle and would use it? I doubt it, but it's possible. The fact that a suspect can and will shoot offensively and shoot back, as had already been demonstrated by this suspect, is sometimes enough to cause a bit of hesitation and trepidation by law enforcement. But just as often or more often, they will kill armed suspects, or suspects they think are armed, using concealed snipers if necessary, without a sign of hesitation or trepidation. This seems to have been an instance in which officers in Auburn knew where the suspect was hiding and tightened the cordon around that house while a team prepared to enter it, which apparently they did and and when they did the suspect (apparently) promptly surrendered.
How often have police entered a house -- on a no-knock warrant, say -- and shot dogs and people without a moment's hesitation? It happens all the time. Not this time, though. Why?
"That's not who we are."
Maybe that really is the key to understanding the difference between what happened in Sacramento and Auburn on Friday and what seems to be happening every day of the week somewhere else in the country.
Maybe the officers of the Sacramento and Placer County Sheriff's Departments are not Killer Kops -- unlike so many of their colleagues around the country.
If they're not, why aren't they?
Still more to ponder.
In Sacramento on Friday, a sheriff's deputy was shot and killed by a suspect who was in the driver's seat of a car which was (apparently) under suspicion by deputies. The deputy's partner fired back at the suspect and may have wounded him, but the suspect and his accomplice successfully fled, attempted one unsuccessful carjacking in which the driver of the other car was shot in the head and wounded, attempted another successful carjacking, then took the pickup truck of a gardener which they drove to Auburn, CA, where another deputy was shot and killed and a third was wounded.
Both suspects were eventually arrested and are now in custody. Apart from the initial returned fire in Sacramento, no other shots were reportedly fired by law enforcement during the massive hours-long manhunt and eventual capture of the suspect and his accomplice -- who turned out to be his wife.
Why the difference?
Since I learned about this incident in California yesterday, I've repeatedly asked myself that question, "why?" So many suspects are simply shot and killed by police execution-style, yet in this case, it didn't happen when it well might have, especially while the police in Auburn were in the process of capturing the suspect in a home they had entered.
A key may be in the statement of Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner,
“The suspect is in custody, as you know,” Bonner said quietly. “I think there’s those people who would say, ‘Well, you know what, I wish you’d killed him.’That's stunning really, given the widespread street justice dispensed by law enforcement all over the country, leaving so many dead, many of them innocent of wrong-doing, most of them no threat to police or others.
“No, that’s not who we are, we are not him. We did our job..."
Yet here is a case in which two deputies were killed, another and a civilian wounded, and suspects are taken into custody without killing them. How... odd.
I've thought about why, and I've wondered, "Did they think the suspects were white?" Yes, so often, race enters into the equation, with black and brown men subjected to "street justice" by police far more often than white men are (though it's wrong to assume white men are immune. They are not.) "Were the suspects white?" The man involved has been identified as a Mexican national, but no pictures have been released (apart from a distant one as he is being transported to the hospital for assessment and treatment of his wound(s). It's impossible to say from that picture whether the suspect appears to be white. But being a Mexican national does not automatically mean he is brown. It's not clear what race his wife is, but it's likely she is white (the Salt Lake City origin of the couple indicates as much, but again, there is no certainty as yet.)
Would perceived whiteness have been a reason not to kill them? Perhaps, though I doubt it.
The man was reportedly armed with an AR-15 which he was not particularly hesitant to use, and the woman was reported to have a pistol in her purse. Whether she ever brandished or used it, I don't know, but she is charged with carjacking and attempted murder, so possibly she did use her gun, if only to show it.
Were police hesitant to use lethal force against them because they knew that at least one of them was armed with an automatic rifle and would use it? I doubt it, but it's possible. The fact that a suspect can and will shoot offensively and shoot back, as had already been demonstrated by this suspect, is sometimes enough to cause a bit of hesitation and trepidation by law enforcement. But just as often or more often, they will kill armed suspects, or suspects they think are armed, using concealed snipers if necessary, without a sign of hesitation or trepidation. This seems to have been an instance in which officers in Auburn knew where the suspect was hiding and tightened the cordon around that house while a team prepared to enter it, which apparently they did and and when they did the suspect (apparently) promptly surrendered.
How often have police entered a house -- on a no-knock warrant, say -- and shot dogs and people without a moment's hesitation? It happens all the time. Not this time, though. Why?
"That's not who we are."
Maybe that really is the key to understanding the difference between what happened in Sacramento and Auburn on Friday and what seems to be happening every day of the week somewhere else in the country.
Maybe the officers of the Sacramento and Placer County Sheriff's Departments are not Killer Kops -- unlike so many of their colleagues around the country.
If they're not, why aren't they?
Still more to ponder.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
This Was No Split Second Decison
I want people to understand this about police shootings.
So often we hear the police rationale that in a "life or death situation" police have to make "split second decisions" on whether and what kind of force to use in any given circumstance. Sometimes, of course, those decisions lead to "unfortunate loss of life." Oh well. Police "should be able to go home to their families at night." Case closed.
So often we hear the excuses. So often the excuses are false.
The decision to kill is not made in a "split second." Sometimes these decisions are made hours, days, months and even years in advance, not based on what is happening but based the on protocols and policies of sniper squads and special weapons and tactics teams.
Once deployed, the death of the suspect is all but certain. It has nothing whatever to do with "split second" decision making. It has everything to do with the expectations and training of those assigned to do the killing.
KRQE in Albuquerque has done detailed reporting on how it worked in the case of a mentally ill homeless man, James Boyd, shot to death in the Sandia foothills last March. That shooting triggered months of protest and the release of a scathing report from the Department of Justice on the routine violations of civil rights and the many other failings -- some of them clearly criminal -- of the Albuquerque Police Department.
Boyd was shot to death as he was surrendering after a multi-hour standoff between him and as many as 42 officers and a police dog (a dog which was sicced on Boyd and bit him severely after he was shot and paralyzed.) Two of those officers, Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy, shot Boyd to death. Sandy, at the least, has now been documented to have made the decision to shoot him hours before the deed was done. It was his assignment as a member of the elite Repeat Offender Project.
Recently, too, another APD killer, a police sniper named Sean Wallace, has been awarded a commendation by Police Chief Gorden Eden for his outstanding service. So far, he has shot and killed three -- or is it four -- unarmed men. It's his assignment on the force. Of course, the award was for helping to take armed men into custody without shooting them to death, so maybe it's a sign of progress. Maybe not.
Many police forces employ snipers and elite officers and units whose main function is to kill. Once they are assigned and deployed, the suspect will more than likely die.
There is nothing "split second" about it -- except when the bullets enter the person's body.
So often we hear the police rationale that in a "life or death situation" police have to make "split second decisions" on whether and what kind of force to use in any given circumstance. Sometimes, of course, those decisions lead to "unfortunate loss of life." Oh well. Police "should be able to go home to their families at night." Case closed.
So often we hear the excuses. So often the excuses are false.
The decision to kill is not made in a "split second." Sometimes these decisions are made hours, days, months and even years in advance, not based on what is happening but based the on protocols and policies of sniper squads and special weapons and tactics teams.
Once deployed, the death of the suspect is all but certain. It has nothing whatever to do with "split second" decision making. It has everything to do with the expectations and training of those assigned to do the killing.
KRQE in Albuquerque has done detailed reporting on how it worked in the case of a mentally ill homeless man, James Boyd, shot to death in the Sandia foothills last March. That shooting triggered months of protest and the release of a scathing report from the Department of Justice on the routine violations of civil rights and the many other failings -- some of them clearly criminal -- of the Albuquerque Police Department.
Boyd was shot to death as he was surrendering after a multi-hour standoff between him and as many as 42 officers and a police dog (a dog which was sicced on Boyd and bit him severely after he was shot and paralyzed.) Two of those officers, Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy, shot Boyd to death. Sandy, at the least, has now been documented to have made the decision to shoot him hours before the deed was done. It was his assignment as a member of the elite Repeat Offender Project.
Recently, too, another APD killer, a police sniper named Sean Wallace, has been awarded a commendation by Police Chief Gorden Eden for his outstanding service. So far, he has shot and killed three -- or is it four -- unarmed men. It's his assignment on the force. Of course, the award was for helping to take armed men into custody without shooting them to death, so maybe it's a sign of progress. Maybe not.
Many police forces employ snipers and elite officers and units whose main function is to kill. Once they are assigned and deployed, the suspect will more than likely die.
There is nothing "split second" about it -- except when the bullets enter the person's body.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Killer Kop Protest
From the Journal:
“We have 27 killings since 2010, and I believe they should have another venue, another state, with all due respect,” demonstrator Nora Anaya said.
Other activists at the protest called it “ironic” and tone deaf for the competition to be held in Albuquerque. In April, the U.S. Department of Justice concluded its investigation into the police department and found that a majority of shootings it examined were not constitutional and that the department had gaps in training, accountability and organization.
Protesters also said they would have preferred a competition that instead rewards officers for successfully de-escalating situations that could otherwise end in an officer-involved shooting.
“It’s not about who can get the better shot and kill the most people,” protester Renee Garcia said as gunfire rang out from competitors at the shooting range.The apologists for the Killer Kop Kompetition beg to disagree. For them, it is very much about that "better shot" and killing more people more efficiently, doing the best job possible by eliminating all those many threats and keeping us safe.
I think I posted a link to the story of the shooting of John Rogers in Bloomfield, and it's really quite shocking how cavalier and almost casual the department and the media has been about killing this man who was just going about his business according to his family when he was accosted by armed men, one of whom shot him in the upper body, killing him. According to his family members who were there, Rogers was not armed and he was not threatening police. It didn't matter. He "reached" for what they said was a gun in the glove compartment of his truck. Bam! There is no way to prove whether he "reached for a gun" or not, however. Why, in any case, should "reaching" be a death sentence?
The Bloomfield police department describes the internal investigation of the shooting:
“It's more of an internal check to see what we can do to make our department the best it can be.”How much better can they get at killing people? Oh. Well. I'm sure they can get much better at it if they really put their minds to it. What nonsense.
And they use the incident as a means to recruit officers, as their current numbers are somewhat down:
The two officers called to the scene of the shooting were placed on paid administrative leave, pending the outcome of the investigation. Three more officers have recently left the department or retired, reducing the number of active officers from 20 to 15.
Foster said his department is currently accepting applications for two open positions. He said he hopes to have the positions filled in the next few weeks.OK then. Priorities, I guess. And routines. And procedures.
Rogers is dead, so he can't complain about it, and his family, well... too bad for them. You know if they didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have called the police... it's their fault, right? If a neighbor called, it's still the Rogers family's fault. It was, after all, the second time police had been out there that day. They don't have time to deal with trouble making Indians in the middle of the day. It's their own fault, right?
Rogers "reached into the glove box of his vehicle and pulled out a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol". Given the annoyance he'd already caused, who wouldn't shoot him, right? Police start yelling, "gun! gun! gun!" and bam! bam! bam! they drop the guy like a deer.
Except New Mexico is an open carry state, isn't it? Well, so what? Dude was Navajo, never mind he owned a trucking business and was well regarded, yadda yadda, open carry doesn't ever really apply to non-anglos, does it? Indian with a gun! Kill! Kill! Kill! Bam!
This is what the training and conditioning at the Killer Kop Kompetition is all about. The Kops are being conditioned to see threats everywhere, especially guns and weapons of all kinds in the hands of myriad "types" -- Outlaws one and all -- which include just about everyone who isn't white, and who isn't at least upper middle class, and who isn't instantly obedient. Are you deaf? Too bad for you. Bam!
Those who threaten suicide, the mentally ill, the homeless, Indians, Blacks, Mexicans and other sorts of brown people, the poor, the marginal, the outspoken, the disobedient and the defiant, all are designated Outlaws by the authorities, and all are subject to summary execution. The Killer Kop Kompetition going on now in Albuquerque is one of the many means by which the police condition their minds and hone their skills to eliminate threats from these Outlaws -- by shooting and killing them. Bam!
The thing of it is, most are ordinary people trying to go about their lives as best they can. Some of them have difficulty doing so for all kinds of reasons, but that shouldn't mean they are eligible for summary execution. Some get into squabbles with family or neighbors. That shouldn't make them eligible for summary execution. Some use drugs or alcohol. Yes? Does that automatically make them eligible for summary execution? A few become suicidal -- again, for all kinds of reasons. Why do the police so often feel it is their job to help these suicidal people along by shooting and killing them? Why are police so frightened of the public -- ordinary people -- that when they perceive someone "reaching" they believe their lives are endangered and they must shoot to kill? Why? It's insane. Crazy. Mindless.
Why does the sight of a gun -- which is probably perfectly legal to possess and show -- make them so fearful they believe they must shoot to kill (assuming of course the gun is in the hands of one of the categories of designated Outlaw)?
And why, ultimately, are the police protected when they kill? Yes, I know the law protects them, but departments can have policies that curb the killing. Why don't they? Why do they encourage officers to react to the kinds of scenarios that are part of the Killer Kop Kompetition?
These Killer Kop policies can and must change.
The killing must stop.
At least 1519 dead since May 1, 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)