Police Accountability

Amadan said:

I dunno - sometimes it seems to be getting worse, but I'm aware that police corruption, and the ability for them to beat, torture, even kill suspects with impunity was probably greater in the past. On the other hand, with more oversight and criticism and limits on what they're supposed to be allowed to do seems to have come greater isolation and even more of a walled mentality regarding the public at large.

Click to expand...

I think that the reason it appears to be getting worse is that people are now publicizing negative police encounters. In the past, those stories would have been confined to communities. Now people know to record their interactions with law enforcement and put them online if law enforcement puts a foot wrong.

I also think people are taking notice because some of these negative interactions include people thought to be shielded from police aggression by privilege.

Regardless of cause, law enforcement as a profession has a public relations crisis on its hands. It doesn't matter if the ratio of positive interactions to negative interactions is one thousand to one if the only thing people remember and discuss is that one.

Amadan said:

Dude, you know I rarely agree with nighttimer and I think his rhetoric is often so hyberbolic it threatens to reach orbit. But it does seem to me that when it comes to police behaving badly, a cop pretty much does have to shoot a toddler in the back of the head while screaming the n-word before you'll agree with only mild reservations that this is probably a bad cop. (Yes, that was slightly hyperbolic. )

Click to expand...

Rugcat has actually been very critical of a number of police actions, so I think this is not really a fair assessment of his history here.

On this one, he may be right legally. But if so, then I think the law needs to be changed to reduce the powers of the police. It looks to me more like harassment on the part of the police, rather than legitimate investigation. And legally, I don't think it should matter (even if it does) that his attorney was representing him for a different case. She should have the right to step in and represent him in this matter, too. And really, how does anyone expect her to know, given the exchange, that they were there to investigate a different case?

I have no problem with her actions, and serious problems with lack of professionalism on the police officer's part.

Well, that seems to be part of the problem. In another post, rugcat pointed out that police have discretion and it would be insane, and tyrannical, to enforce every law that can be enforced always.

Conversely, police have broad powers, with the understanding that they are supposed to use them with discretion. If the only way to prevent cops from abusing their power is to take it away from them, then our problem is not just legislative.

I was talking about a very narrow and specific change - that is, if the person has a lawyer present to defend his or her rights in the encounter, and the lawyer steps in, the cops need to recognize that the lawyer is doing her job, and work with her.

But in any case, this whole scenario is bizarre. Why take pictures when you already have them? After all, he's there for another case. They have mug shots, presumably. What will pictures of him waiting in the halls of a courthouse do that the previous pictures won't?

That's why I said it almost sounds more like harassment than investigation to me.

Amadan said:

Conversely, police have broad powers, with the understanding that they are supposed to use them with discretion. If the only way to prevent cops from abusing their power is to take it away from them, then our problem is not just legislative.

Click to expand...

The idea of police accountability is a nice thing to want, but wanting doesn't make it so.

This "it's not all cops, just the bad cops" line is played out. Good cops don't like Bad Cops? Well, then where the hell are the good cops? Why aren't they yelling the loudest and the longest about the bad ones giving all of them a bad name?

At some point silence is acquiescence and complicity. Either you believe in good policing and professionalism or you don't. When any criticism of the cops by is tempered with "I wasn't there" or "Police have a tough job and I don't want to second guess them" it appears the interest is not in creating accountability but coming up with alibis.

Sometimes right is right and wrong is just wrong and there's no shades of grey when it comes down to Black and White.

A new video appears to show a New Rochelle police officer pulling his gun on a group of black teens who had reportedly been having a snowball fight. "Don't fucking move, guys," the officer tells them, before frisking two kneeling on the ground.

"They were having a snowball fight," a woman is heard to say in the video. "This group of guys was having a snowball fight and now a cop has a gun on them."

Two police cars are visible in the video. Talk of the Sounds reports that the officers were responding to a report of a person with a gun. The video is believed to have been taken earlier this week.

Click to expand...

Granted, this is a sketchy story with a lot of details missing. Were the guys having a snowball fight raising too much hell, impeding traffic, blocking the sidewalk, disturbing the peace, breaking someone's glass with an errant snowball or generally being a public nuisance? Who called the cops and what were they told was going on? A snowball fight or a gang fight?

I don't know. I can't say. I wasn't there.

What I do know is a cop rolling up and pulling out the artillery on a some dudes throwing snowballs at each other is a big, heaping, steaming pile of BULLSHIT.

Some cops are poorly trained, lack the skills to do the job, have the wrong disposition, are flat-out racists, and are otherwise unfit to carry a badge and gun and make life and death decisions.

Shooting someone over a snowball fight is hot garbage. And another sign of the kind of overreach and "I Am the Law" mentality that leads straight to a hostile, paranoid, and authoritative police force which defiantly resists observation, criticism or deference to civilian authority.

And that's how you get to a police state.

nighttimer said:

This "it's not all cops, just the bad cops" line is played out. Good cops don't like Bad Cops? Well, then where the hell are the good cops? Why aren't they yelling the loudest and the longest about the bad ones giving all of them a bad name?

Click to expand...

Well, and framing it as "good cops" and "bad cops" is overly-simplistic to begin with. There are bad cops out there who intentionally abuse their power or are blatantly terrible, and there are good cops who are very good at their jobs. But there are also a lot of cops who probably mean well but have insufficient training, have biases that they're not conscious of, or aren't psychologically prepared for the job. And even good cops can make mistakes sometimes.

It's probably comforting to a lot of people to think that the problem is just a few bad apples, but the reality is that police officers face difficult situations all the time, and sometimes they react in ways that lead to questions about whether they handled the situation correctly. I get why a lot of people want to give cops the benefit of the doubt and "go easy on them," so to speak. But if there's no accountability, how can cops learn to be good in the first place? Barring situations that are obviously grievous abuses of police authority, how are cops supposed to know that they're toeing the line or doing something dangerous if their actions aren't judged?

It's not fair to always assume that the cops must be in the wrong, but it's not healthy to do the reverse, either. Being criticized is not always a bad thing, especially when your job involves making life-or-death decisions.

nighttimer said:

This "it's not all cops, just the bad cops" line is played out. Good cops don't like Bad Cops? Well, then where the hell are the good cops? Why aren't they yelling the loudest and the longest about the bad ones giving all of them a bad name?

Click to expand...

I think I found four. They're not exactly yelling but I'll take "quietly dispute" if people listen to it.

DancingMaenid said:

It's not fair to always assume that the cops must be in the wrong, but it's not healthy to do the reverse, either. Being criticized is not always a bad thing, especially when your job involves making life-or-death decisions.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with criticism. Bad cops should, and often are punished. In San Francisco last week, two cops were just convicted for warrantless searches, lying about the searches, and stealing personal property from suspects in single occupancy low-rent hotels. They will deserve everything they get it.

However, the concept of "accountability" for some simply means that any cop who ever makes a mistake should be either fired, sent to jail, or both.

Some seem to be unable to distinguish between a mistake, deliberate malfeasance, or justified actions. It's all lumped into one, with demands that police be vilified regardless of the actual circumstances of a particular case.

Cops do indeed tend to close ranks to support one of their own. Just like every other group there is. But when you work with the knowledge that anytime you face a bad situation, no matter how you handle it or what you do, if there's a bad outcome there will be people screaming for your head, you definitely tend to develop an us v them mentality.

There are almost 1,000,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the US. The nature of their job brings them into conflict with people every single day. There will always be bad cops, there will always be mistakes made, as well as individual acts of bravery and compassion.

But those who despise the police (while protesting they only despise the bad cops, not all cops) can cruise the internet and find plenty of ammunition for their personal rants.

It doesn't help address real problems, however. All it does is harden the divide and promote further distrust and anger. But that's okay – righteous indignation is always more fun than problem-solving.

rugcat said:

There's nothing wrong with criticism. Bad cops should, and often are punished. In San Francisco last week, two cops were just convicted for warrantless searches, lying about the searches, and stealing personal property from suspects in single occupancy low-rent hotels. They will deserve everything they get it.

Click to expand...

See, that's the thing. I would much rather have accountability in place so that officers are less likely to get to a point where they need to be seriously disciplined in the first place.

It sounds like the cops in your example were knowingly violating the law and benefiting from it with their stealing, but I can easily see how a lot of decent cops may be influenced by an environment where other officers encourage unethical practices, or unethical practices are not chastened. Or where officers are not adequately taught. It's worrisome to hear about examples where police officers don't seem to know what rights individuals have or what citizens can legally refuse or request of officers.

It is much better to know what the standards and expectations are early on, and to receive mild censure for mild infractions, than to get fired over a major violation after being allowed to get by with stuff previously.

DancingMaenid said:

See, that's the thing. I would much rather have accountability in place so that officers are less likely to get to a point where they need to be seriously disciplined in the first place.

It sounds like the cops in your example were knowingly violating the law and benefiting from it with their stealing, but I can easily see how a lot of decent cops may be influenced by an environment where other officers encourage unethical practices, or unethical practices are not chastened. Or where officers are not adequately taught. It's worrisome to hear about examples where police officers don't seem to know what rights individuals have or what citizens can legally refuse or request of officers.

It is much better to know what the standards and expectations are early on, and to receive mild censure for mild infractions, than to get fired over a major violation after being allowed to get by with stuff previously.

Click to expand...

As long as we have human beings doing the job of police officers there will always be some incompetent cops, some bad cops and some police corruption.

This is true not only here but all over the world, in every country. All the training and good intentions in the world will not change basic human nature, which of course includes police officers.

The best one can do is hope to minimize it and to develop a culture where it is not acceptable. This already is the case in many departments. It is also most definitely not the case in others. One of the problems in talking about "police" as a whole is that every department every state every municipality is different, taken from different segments of society, with different cultural assumptions, and quite frankly different levels of professionalism.

And police reflect the societies they come from. The police in Sweden and the Netherlands are far closer to the ideal than the departments in the US. On the other hand, the police in Russia are equivalent to the mafia. This has far less to do with training that or does the societies they spring from.

One thing (that has been suggested in this thread) is federalizing the police department, creating uniform standards across the country. This of course is total anathema to a large segment of the population. Politically it is simply not possible, desirable or not so that's nothing but a pipe dream.

DancingMaenid said:

Well, and framing it as "good cops" and "bad cops" is overly-simplistic to begin with. There are bad cops out there who intentionally abuse their power or are blatantly terrible, and there are good cops who are very good at their jobs. But there are also a lot of cops who probably mean well but have insufficient training, have biases that they're not conscious of, or aren't psychologically prepared for the job. And even good cops can make mistakes sometimes.

It's probably comforting to a lot of people to think that the problem is just a few bad apples, but the reality is that police officers face difficult situations all the time, and sometimes they react in ways that lead to questions about whether they handled the situation correctly. I get why a lot of people want to give cops the benefit of the doubt and "go easy on them," so to speak. But if there's no accountability, how can cops learn to be good in the first place? Barring situations that are obviously grievous abuses of police authority, how are cops supposed to know that they're toeing the line or doing something dangerous if their actions aren't judged?

It's not fair to always assume that the cops must be in the wrong, but it's not healthy to do the reverse, either. Being criticized is not always a bad thing, especially when your job involves making life-or-death decisions.

Click to expand...

You'd have a hard time convincing the police apologists of that.

They see a fascist thug with a badge write up some crap where he asserts his divine right to hurt you if you dare question his authority and they say "he sounds like a good cop."

They blow off the NYPD cops who chose the funerals of fallen officers to turn their back and disrespect the mayor as no big deal.

They try to flip the script and tar anyone who criticizes the police as hating cops and when they can't come up with any evidence of any such hate they wave off the criticism as unfounded.

They play this passive-aggressive game where they appoint themselves as the sole authority as to what constitutes poor policing and golly gee they sure are concerned about it, but they want no part of coming up with any actual solutions, propose no plans and have nothing to offer besides empty platitudes and war stories of "how tough it is to be a cop."

Which begs the question, if it's so goddamned tough to be a cop how does a royal fuck-up like Timothy Loehmann get a badge?

We will never develop a culture where "incompetent cops, bad cops and police corruption" as long as the apologists and enablers of incompetent cops, bad cops and corrupt cops don't have the balls to call out the bullies with badges as eagerly as they do their critics.

The enablers and apologists make it impossible to change the evil ways of the police and more, they don't have the courage of their lofty, but empty convictions to face the fact they actively encourage it to flourish.

nighttimer said:

The enablers and apologists make it impossible to change the evil ways of the police and more, they don't have the courage of their lofty, but empty convictions to face the fact they actively encourage it to flourish.

Click to expand...

Basically, this.

Don't want to disappoint anyone expecting a dose of orbital hyperbole, righteous indignation and personal rants.

Because there's never a shortage of stories about cops behaving badly and providing plenty of ammunition.

Two Florida police officers are accused of forcing an 11-year-old girl to the ground at gunpoint after responding to a burglary call at her home.

The child was watching television in bed when the officers let themselves into her family’s Groveland home with their weapons drawn after the burglary alarm was accidentally activated, reported WFTV-TV.

She said one of the officers pushed her to the ground and held here there with his knee while the other officer pointed his gun at her.

“I was very scared and didn’t know what to do,” she said.
The officers asked if she was the homeowner and then went to her father’s room down the hall.

“Someone should get fired for doing something like this,” said the girl’s father, Jean Guirand.

Groveland police launched an internal investigation after the TV station called seeking comment.

The two officers, James Festa and John Rigdon, are three-year veterans with previous disciplinary actions in their personnel files.

Festa was reprimanded in December for botching a child abuse investigation and was suspended in 2013 for sleeping on the job.

Rigdon was suspended in May, demoted from corporal in 2013, and reprimanded in 2011 – each time for filing false police reports.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there's someone who can rationalize drawing down on a 11-year-old girl and I'd really enjoy seeing them try.


Oh, and though I'm such an unrepentant cop-hater, I'll take the hit to my rep by providing the police version of events of the snowball fight/bust.

A video that appears to catch a New Rochelle police officer pointing a gun at a group of teenagers who were having a snowball fight — and went viral on the Internet — is not what it appears to be, cops said.
“There was no snowball fight,” New Rochelle Deputy Police Commissioner Anthony Murphy told the Daily News, calling the video a piece of “clever mischief.”

He said police were responding to a 911 call around 4 p.m. Friday that a teenager standing in a group of six near the Heritage Houses had pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at another person.

“We dispatched several cars to the area. Police officers got out of their cars and one of the individuals bent down, adjusted something in his waistband and ran,” Murphy said.
As one officer took off after the suspect, another remained with the five teens who did not run, Murphy said.

There was no snowball fight,” he said.

A high-ranking source agreed with Murphy.

“The video looks terrible, but it’s completely out of context,” the source said. “It’s a completely different incident than it appears from that snippet. There's clearly a lot of misunderstanding. The record of the 911 call will by itself illustrate what was going on.”

Officials said they will not release a recording of the 911 call, but may release a transcript of the call.

“I’m sure that if I release it (the recording), there are people in the neighborhood who will identify the (caller),” Murphy said. “We depend on the public to give us information. If you violate that (trust), then what do you tell people? We know what happened, I know what happened and that’s it.”

Click to expand...

We report. You decide.

At least police accountability is receiving rave reviews from police in St. Louis.

An open meeting at City Hall on the creation of a civilian oversight board of the police department devolved into a melee on Wednesday night, further exposing the city’s deep divisions over race and law enforcement.

The meeting held by the aldermanic public safety committee, designed to seek public comment, lasted more than an hour with little event as residents ticked off the pros and cons of having a civilian board to review police conduct and procedures.

But the crowd became unsettled when police officers began testifying in opposition to the bill. At times, Alderman Terry Kennedy, who chairs the committee, struggled to keep order. The noise in the room spiked as police officers attempted to testify.

Click to expand...

Highlighting mine.

The story goes on to detail how the union business manager then attempted to basically take over the meeting, which then devolved into a 15-minute melee.

Funny, the people who paid my paycheck before I retired never once allowed me to testify in opposition to having my performance reviewed, but I'm pretty sure how that would have gone over with them.

Were these "good cops" or "bad cops" objecting to having their performance reviewed? If they're "good cops," why the objection? If they're "bad cops," how'd they wrest the microphone from the "good cops," who supposedly outnumber them greatly?

Don said:

Were these "good cops" or "bad cops" objecting to having their performance reviewed? If they're "good cops," why the objection? If they're "bad cops," how'd they wrest the microphone from the "good cops," who supposedly outnumber them greatly?

Click to expand...

I suspect they know what the rest of us do. The statement "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" is a lie. False positives happen and our system is horrible at correcting them.

That doesn't mean I won't keep saying it with delight whenever officers object to additional oversight, however.

Don said:

At least police accountability is receiving rave reviews from police in St. Louis.

Highlighting mine.

The story goes on to detail how the union business manager then attempted to basically take over the meeting, which then devolved into a 15-minute melee.

Funny, the people who paid my paycheck before I retired never once allowed me to testify in opposition to having my performance reviewed, but I'm pretty sure how that would have gone over with them.

Were these "good cops" or "bad cops" objecting to having their performance reviewed? If they're "good cops," why the objection? If they're "bad cops," how'd they wrest the microphone from the "good cops," who supposedly outnumber them greatly?

Click to expand...

I do think there is too much of a culture of lack of accountability in our police forces, and they do do what they want too often without real regard for the actual law. I don't always think each case publicized is a good example, but I think it's clear it's a big problem.

It's the same sort of problem as many 'power corrupts' type of problems in societies across the world, imho. Accountability is key, imho. While I do tend to trust most cops, I hear the words 'Internal Affairs' and get angry. I really wish our DoJ was expanded (employee-wise) to just let all hell loose on LE across the country. Or at least at the state level.

Ironically, considering who I'm talking to here, it's a shining example of how things done too locally can be incredibly corrupt. I don't think that's the only reason it happens, but it's more of a Good Ole Boys Club than a normal profession all too often, imho. It's easy for them to forget their real roles, and the incredible power goes to their heads.

Some may just be ignorant of some laws (like protest rights, or the situation with the Public Defender, imho) because of culture of their force and training, but that needs to be stomped out, too, obviously.

Don said:

The story goes on to detail how the union business manager then attempted to basically take over the meeting, which then devolved into a 15-minute melee.

Click to expand...

That's certainly one interpretation of what happened.

Another might be that after an hour of testimony from supporters, when police officers attempted to give their reasons for not supporting the bill, they were shouted down and were refused to be allowed to speak.

But the crowd became unsettled when police officers began testifying in opposition to the bill. At times, Alderman Terry Kennedy, who chairs the committee, struggled to keep order. The noise in the room spiked as police officers attempted to testify.

Click to expand...

We don't know the particulars of this specific bill. There needs to be civilian input on any police review board, without doubt. Whether that input includes the final say on what happens to a particular officer is a matter of contention.

I know I'd hate to have the validity of my actions as a police officer and my fate determined by someone who takes as their default position that that the police can always be assumed to have been at fault (As in your view of what happened in this meeting.)

Don said:

At least police accountability is receiving rave reviews from police in St. Louis.

The story goes on to detail how the union business manager then attempted to basically take over the meeting, which then devolved into a 15-minute melee.

Funny, the people who paid my paycheck before I retired never once allowed me to testify in opposition to having my performance reviewed, but I'm pretty sure how that would have gone over with them.

Were these "good cops" or "bad cops" objecting to having their performance reviewed? If they're "good cops," why the objection? If they're "bad cops," how'd they wrest the microphone from the "good cops," who supposedly outnumber them greatly?

Click to expand...

Maybe because the thin blue line has blurred and you can't tell the "good" cops from the "bad" cops when they both act the same way.

It takes a very broad interpretation to say the cops and their spokesman were shouted down and not allowed to speak, but if you play fast and loose with the facts, it's an easy one to make.

Jeff Roorda, business manager for the St. Louis Police Officer’s Association, pushed a young black woman at a public hearing on civilian review at St. Louis City Hall on Wednesday, January 28.

Roorda, who was sitting in the audience, had just finished yelling to the public safety committee chairman Alderman Terry Kennedy, “How about some order here?”

His comment came after a police officer was trying to give his testimony on the proposed legislation of a civilian oversight board, but was being interrupted by some attendees.

Kennedy responded to Roorda, saying, “First of all, you do not tell me my function.”

After hearing this, Roorda rose from his seat and was trying to move through the crowd towards the front of the room. In the process, he tried to push a young black woman out of his way. In a video posted on Twitter, the woman, St. Louis resident Cachet Currie, said she was trying to leave the room when the incident happened. Her face was visibly scratched.

Yelling and name-calling shortly ensued after. Police officers held Roorda back as he tried to charge at people in crowd. Roorda left the building, and Kennedy adjourned the meeting soon after. No arrests were made.

According to official sources, Roorda is being investigated for assault.

Click to expand...

The business manager of the St. Louis police disrupts a meeting, assaults an innocent bystander and tries to start a fight, but its the cops whom are being intimidated, shouted down and not allowed to speak.

Yeah. Sure.

This whole "good cops" vs. "bad cops" is a meaningless shibboleth without meaning or substance. Nobody differentiates between "good doctors" and "bad doctors" to this degree, so why play this game? There are only cops. Same as every profession and while some are very good at their job, some flat-out suck at it.

When doctors suck at their job they can lose their license. Attorneys who suck at their job can be disbarred. Even journalists, who operate without a governing body, if they plagiarize, fabricate or commit libel can at the least be fired by their employer.

But not cops. For far too many incidents, they are coddled, receive a slap on the wrist and are sent right back out to the streets. It's a pathetic joke.

Finding a police union willing to endorse a civilian review board is like trying to find teeth in a hen's mouth.

NEWARK — Police labor leaders cried foul today over Mayor Ras Baraka’s announcement that he plans to form a civilian complaint review board to investigate allegations of misconduct against officers, saying the move is far from a done deal.

James Stewart Jr., president of the city’s chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, said implementing the proposed nine-member board would alter the police department’s disciplinary process. State law requires that any changes to that process must be subject to negotiations before being finalized, he added.

“I still believe we have a lot of work to do before anything is in place. We have a disciplinary process currently in effect, and it hasn’t been changed,” Stewart said.

At a press conference this morning, Baraka outlined his plans for the board, which would have the power to subpoena officers and certain documents as they investigate complaints against officers involving excessive force, discourtesy or other alleged abuses of power.

However, the mayor admitted that a great deal of work remained before the board could begin its work, including details about criteria for membership and a training process for those eventually chosen to serve.

Click to expand...

The police don't want accountability. They want autonomy and authority. The police don't want oversight. They want control.

Well, golly gee. Color me soooooo surprised.

A Department of Justice report that could be released as early as this week has found racial bias in some Ferguson police department procedures, according to sources who spoke with the New York Times. Though the DOJ will reportedly clear Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of teenager Michael Brown that sparked nationwide anti-police protests this summer, the new report will cite "discriminatory traffic stops," saying officers primarily ticketed African-Americans in order to pad their budget with the fines.

According to the Times:

Blacks accounted for 86 percent of traffic stops in 2013 but make up 63 percent of the population, according to the most recent data published by the Missouri attorney general. And once they were stopped, black drivers were twice as likely to be searched, even though searches of white drivers were more likely to turn up contraband.
​

Once the report is released, the Ferguson police department could face civil rights charges from the DOJ unless they reach a settlement.

Click to expand...

Cops targeting Black drivers to crap up their traffic tickets and pad the budget? That's unpossible!

The real news nugget is Holder won't indict ex-Officer Wilson for killing Mike Brown and this comes after last week's announcement the DoJ will not pursue charges against George Zimmerman for violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights to death.

Hooray for the American system of justice! Can't wait for Darren and George to guest star on How To Get Away With Murder.

Today's example of why "police accountability" is a disgusting oxymoron.

Cook County Judge Dennis Porter stared out across his packed courtroom Monday and offered a warning to anyone prone to emotional outbursts: “It might be a good time to leave right now.”

No one moved.

And then, in a case that has become part of the national discussion about police-involved shootings, Porter made a shocking announcement: He was dismissing all charges against an off-duty Chicago Police officer accused in the March 21, 2012, shooting death of Rekia Boyd.

Then, briefly, chaos ensued as Boyd’s brother Martinez Sutton screamed: “You want me to be quiet? This m—–f—– killed my sister!”


As the accused, Dante Servin, 46, hugged family and his attorneys, Sutton and two dozen or so supporters were hustled out of the courtroom surrounded by Cook County sheriff’s deputies.

Porter’s decision came after prosecutors wrapped up their case against Servin last week at the George Leighton Criminal Courthouse and as the defense was getting set to begin its case.

Servin fatally shot Boyd, 22, and injured her friend Antonio Cross after confronting them and two others about a raucous gathering by Servin’s home near Douglas Park.

Servin’s attorneys had said Cross reached into his waistband, pretending he had a weapon and charged toward Servin. Earlier in the trial, a Chicago Police detective and Cook County prosecutor had testified that Servin told them he opened fire because he believed he saw a gun pointed at him. Cross maintained he had only a cellphone on him, not a gun.

Prosecutors charged Servin with involuntary manslaughter. Last week, defense attorneys made a routine — but typically unsuccessful — mid-trial request, asking Porter to drop the charges, arguing Servin shot only in self-defense when he saw a gun pointed at him.

In Monday’s ruling, Porter said that the charge of involuntary manslaughter requires a judge or jury to find the accused acted recklessly.

“Illinois courts have consistently held that when the defendant intends to fire a gun, points it in the general direction of his or her intended victim, and shoots, such conduct is not merely reckless and does not warrant an involuntary-manslaughter instruction, regardless of the defendant’s assertion that he or she did not intend to kill anyone,” Porter said in his ruling.

Porter went on to say: “The absence of any evidence of reckless conduct renders it unnecessary for this court to consider whether the defendant was justified in his actions.”

A little later, Servin stood before reporters in the lobby of the courthouse, saying justice had been served.

“I always maintained it was an accident what occurred to Miss Boyd,” Servin said. “Miss Boyd and her family, they have my deepest sympathies.”
Servin said the shooting is something that will stay with him for the rest of his life. But he stood by his actions.

“Any reasonable person, any police officer especially would have reacted in the exact same manner that I reacted, and I’m glad to be alive,” Servin said. “I saved my life that night. I’m glad that I’m not a police death statistic.”

Click to expand...

Sorry if by including this I am hardening the divide and promoting further distrust and anger.

After she got shot by a cop it was clear Rekia Boyd wasn't going to get any justice and that made it worth the righteous indignation.

More Protecting and Serving Your Ass

Today's crime: Riding Bicycle While Black:

In Sept. 2013, Dontrell Stephens was shot four times by a West Palm Beach, Fla., sheriff’s deputy, allegedly for running away from law enforcement. But newly released dashcam footage of the shooting, which left Stephens paralyzed from the waist down, shows he was just riding his bike and talking on his cell phone when cops started following him.

At the time, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw defended the shooting, saying, “Stop what you’re doing and comply with us. There’s nothing in the rules of engagement that says we have to put our lives in jeopardy to wait to find out what this is to get killed.”

Adams Lin, the deputy who shot Stephens four times, claimed the unarmed man had reached for a dark object in his pants. The dashcam video doesn’t show Stephens reaching for his pockets, just holding up the phone he was carrying the entire time.

Lin was allowed to return to duty four days later. The shooting was eventually ruled “justified.”

The dashcam video emerged as part of a lawsuit against the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, and was first made public by WPTV and the Palm Beach Post.

“There are no records of any commands ever made to Dontrell Stephens,” said Jack Scarola, the lawyer suing the department on Stephens’ behalf, “The deputy’s recorded statements following the shooting were absolutely false. Internal affairs completely ignored that evidence.”

Click to expand...

The lesson learned? If you do not wish to be paralyzed for life do not ride a bike, talk on a cell phone and be Black in Palm Beach, Florida.

It's bad for ya.

cmhbob said:

Subtitle: Investigating the Police

I thought this deserved its own thread here, thinking it would be easier than tracking the discussion across multiple threads.

There are a couple of major issues I see:

1. Having the people who work side-by-side with cops being the ones who investigate them, whether it by local prosecutors or the cops themselves.
2. Better statistical tracking. Several recent article suggested that police use-of-force incidents are ridiculously under-counted, because not all departments report such to the FBI.
3. Better tracking of officers nationwide, regarding training, certification, and whatnot.

Wisconsin seems to be the first state to do anything about #1. This story, about a dad's quest for justice after his unarmed son was killed by police. He helped Wisconsin pass AB 409, which created a state board to investigate police shootings that result in a fatality. Here's a piece talking about the shootings that have occurred since the bill passed. I think this is huge, especially given that it had support from police unions.

Fixing 2 and 3 are problematic to a small-government type like me. I don't like (much) the Feds forcing the states to do something, but this needs to be tracked better, and the best place to track data like this is at the federal level, so the DOJ needs to get on the ball. Maybe tie this in to participation with the 1033 program. If you don't report, you don't get the toys. One example of the problem: http://gawker.com/what-ive-learned-from-two-years-collecting-data-on-poli-1625472836 Another: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/

As far as fixing #3, i don't know what to do. I've wondered about some sort of national clearinghouse, but have no idea who'd run it. I can't imagine that police unions would go for it, either. There'd be all sorts of privacy concerns. I get that. But the military has their 201 file, which follows you everywhere you go, and keeps all your training, certification, evaluations and most of your disciplinary stuff all in one place. Can't we manage to do something like that for law enforcement?

Click to expand...

#1 is huge. There needs to be an outside agency to hold officers accountable.

I guess I am a little jaded on this subject. My ex is a cop, and there have been multiple episodes of domestic violence involving him where I had to call 911 (both towards myself and in front of our child in front of witnesses). I am a confident person, but nothing makes you feel more helpless than calling the cops for help and getting treated like a child because it is their buddy that needs to be arrested. It took FOUR separate incidences for them to take his guns away, at which point I was pretty much hysterical in fear because he had gone after my elderly mother because he was being watched by his department and couldn't get to me. He also attacked one of his fellow police officers at a bar (grabbed him by the thraot in front of multiple officers), and that whole incident was glossed over as if it never happened. In fact, I was treated like a jealous ex-wife until another woman came forward who he had been stalking and harassing as well -- and funny thing is, she is a woman he ARRESTED and started dating to "work off her charges." Until then, I guess they thought I could be brushed under the rug just like the good ole' boys have always done with uncooperative wives.
The entire system is a disgrace. I'm in the midst of a custody battle now, and I've been told there is no way to get full custody unless he actually kills me or harms our daughter. Being a police officer, he knows exactly what he can get away with and how he can get around the laws to stalk, harass, intimidate, and assault me. He told me repeatedly as long as there's no "visible signs of injury" that the cops won't do anything -- and you know what, he was right. Next time, he is not going to bother with anything minor - he is going to hunt me down when I am alone and he is going to kill me when there are no witnesses. It's sickening that I have to be dead before I can protect myself and my child. I keep getting told I "need more proof". He can do whatever he wants to me, and unless I can prove it, I'm helpless. (I guess sitting on the phone with 911 with my child crying next to me, barricaded in my room while he pounded on the door was not enough? Yeah, I'll make sure to turn my video camera on next time.)

I think there needs to be a separate agency to handle complaints. Too many things can just get swept under the rug when there is no accountability. I respect what police officers do - that is, those who are honorable officers. Those using their badges to commit crimes need to be held accountable.

nighttimer said:

Today's crime: Riding Bicycle While Black:

The lesson learned? If you do not wish to be paralyzed for life do not ride a bike, talk on a cell phone and be Black in Palm Beach, Florida the USA.

It's bad for ya.

Click to expand...

There y'go. Fixed that for ya.

And trust me, it hurts like hell to put it that way.

Look, it isn't just that this is yet another officer who shot yet another black man. It's also that yet again, the system behind that officer, the one that should be holding him accountable for his actions, utterly abrogated its duty.

And so that thin blue line goes on defending the indefensible.

robjvargas said:

Look, it isn't just that this is yet another officer who shot yet another black man. It's also that yet again, the system behind that officer, the one that should be holding him accountable for his actions, utterly abrogated its duty.

And so that thin blue line goes on defending the indefensible.

Click to expand...

That is true and you'll be called a cop-hater for saying so, but there are police department which take the issue of accountability seriously and are doing something about it.

Usually police simulators are tucked away in training academies. But in a Charlotte, N.C., middle school gym, a crowd of 100 people watches Capt. Rob Dance as he leads a teenager through a simulated traffic stop that goes bad.

The simulator lets out several loud bangs. Dance notices the teen is nervous, his hands are shaking.

"You shot 24 times," he tells the student. "Did you realize that?"

It's part of the effort to bridge the disconnect between what police do and how people see it. Most of the attendees are African-American, many from surrounding neighborhoods with crime problems. It's not that easy to pick out the officers from the crowd. For the most part, they're wearing jeans and khakis.

Charlotte hasn't seen the intense unrest of other communities spurred by high-profile police shootings of black men. Still the department wants to be ahead of the problem and address the mistrust that is out there. Shaun Corbett, a barber who came up with the idea for the forums, role-plays with the officers.

"Do I look like I break into houses or sell drugs or rob people?" he asks. "No, I have on my school uniform. So why are you bothering me?"
In 2013, a white Charlotte police officer shot and killed an unarmed black man. The officer was arrested right away. His manslaughter trial is this summer. That incident didn't come up during the forum, but the recent shooting in North Charleston, S.C., did. Charlotte Chief Rodney Monroe says murder is murder. There's no reason to shoot a fleeing man who appears to be unarmed.

"What is the process of weeding out those officers that are just bad seeds?" Yasmin Young, an attendee, asks.
Monroe tells the crowd that identifying those officers is partly up to the community. He encourages them to file racial-profiling complaints to police.

"If someone treats you — or mistreats you — in a way you do not believe is correct, you have to say something," he says. "African-American males between the ages of 16 and 25 years old are the least likely individuals to ever complain on a police officer."

Click to expand...

It takes time to rebuild a broken trust between a community and the cops charged with protecting and serving it, but to their credit it seems the Charlotte police see the value in reaching out to the public. Long term who can say if it will repair the relationship, you got to start somewhere.

It's a damn sight better than what's going on in Baltimore at the moment.

nighttimer said:

That is true and you'll be called a cop-hater for saying so, but there are police department which take the issue of accountability seriously and are doing something about it.


It takes time to rebuild a broken trust between a community and the cops charged with protecting and serving it, but to their credit it seems the Charlotte police see the value in reaching out to the public. Long term who can say if it will repair the relationship, you got to start somewhere.

It's a damn sight better than what's going on in Baltimore at the moment.

Click to expand...

A far sight better indeed.

Look, police have to act in moments where they are, quite bluntly, unable to have all the information up front. If you pull a guy over for a busted taillight, did he run because he's got two dozen parking tickets and bench warrant? Or is it because he's making a last-ditch effort to do some serious harm to someone?

I don't want officers' jobs to be any harder than they already are. JUST BE HONEST WITH THE PEOPLE YOU'RE SWORN TO PROTECT.