For additional background, see the recent series of articles about forfeiture in the Washington Post.
For additional background, see the recent series of articles about forfeiture in the Washington Post.
From the Washington Post:
Shot in the chest, he was left to bleed to death inside his doorway while police officers, remaining outside the house, did nothing for an hour. Five and a half hours after the shooting, his body remained sprawled on the floor where he died.
Incredibly, the authorities in Northern Virginia — including Fairfax County police and state and federal prosecutors — have refused to furnish any explanation for this stupefying sequence of events last Aug. 29 in Springfield. They have stonewalled.
Fairfax County Police Chief Edwin C. Roessler Jr. promised to “hold myself accountable” to Mr. Geer’s family, which includes two young daughters. He has done nothing of the kind. No official information about the shooting has been forthcoming. The officer who fired the shot, who remains on the force with full pay, has not been identified.
The authorities conduct themselves as if the case presented insurmountable complexities. This strains credulity. It involved one shot, one gun, one shooter and one fatality. It took place in broad daylight, at mid-afternoon. It was witnessed at close range by at least two other police officers, as well as friends and neighbors of Mr. Geer. And still authorities refuse to act or discuss Mr. Geer’s death.
According to news reports, three White House officials will be attending the funeral for Michael Brown today. Vice President Joe Biden will not be attending and that is no surprise. Why? Because the Brown family has been demanding a vigorous, impartial investigation into the shooting and Biden is fond of saying that he “has the back” of the police force. Biden’s presence would be awkward, to say the least.
Here is a clip where Biden is urging a police audience to get behind President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.
Biden has kept a low profile since the unrest began in Ferguson–and no wonder. The last thing protesters there want to hear is that the White House “has the back” of the police. Indeed, that’s why there is so much concern about the local county prosecutor who is handling the investigation and why there have been calls for Governor Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor. A special prosecutor would be more likely to follow the evidence impartially.
Beyond the Brown shooting, we have seen other abuses by the police there. The false arrest of reporters, the tear gas rounds fired into the yards of homes, and the reckless weapon handling by officers against protestors. One wonders if Biden has been on the phone to Obama … saying the administration’s approach thus far has been all wrong… It should “have the back” of the police–not the reporters, the residents, the protesters.
Beyond Ferguson, African-Americans (and others) have been protesting in other cities. On Saturday, thousands of New Yorkers turned out to protest the killing of Eric Garner by New York City police. Other cities have other incidents to relate.
Make no mistake, Biden has been part of the problem. The long simmering tensions in communities around the country did not spring out of nowhere. Misguided policies and unaccountable bureaucracies bear much of the blame. And so do powerful politicians like Biden, who have been deaf to the cries of police abuse and harassment.
From CBS Sacramento:
FAIRFIELD (CBS13) – Court documents show that Fairfield Police Officers Stephen Ruiz and Jacob Glashoff used company time and equipment to search for women on internet dating sites.
The documents also show that two used the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System – a statewide police database – to screen the women they liked.
“I feel like it’s an abuse of their power, using it for their own personal gain,” said Fairfield resident Carlos Thompson.
From the New York Times:
Thousands converged on an overcast Saturday at the site of the encounter, the start of a protest march linking Mr. Garner’s death to lethal police actions past and present, from New York City to Ferguson, Mo., where a white officer fatally shot an unarmed black teenager on Aug. 9.
Signs and slogans touched on details of the deaths as well as broad policies that protesters argued encouraged bad behavior by officers.
“ ‘Broken Windows’ Kills,” a sign read, a reference to the aggressive policing of minor offenses like selling untaxed cigarettes, the crime Mr. Garner had been accused of committing.
Chants of “I can’t breathe” — Mr. Garner’s words as he struggled with officers — mixed with those borrowed from Ferguson: “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
For days, march organizers and Mayor Bill de Blasio emphasized that the demonstration on Staten Island would not devolve into the sort of violent confrontation with police officers that had plagued the protests over the death of the Ferguson teenager, Michael Brown. By late afternoon, the march had ended and the crowds were heading home. The police said all had been quiet and there had been no arrests….
During the demonstration, community affairs officers in royal-blue shirts and baseball hats offered a stark contrast to the militarized posture of police officers in the aftermath of Mr. Brown’s death. Uniformed patrol officers controlled crowds at the ferry terminal and appeared interested to keep a respectful distance from the marchers along the route.
The Michael Brown shooting has brought attention to certain police policies and how those policies scramble the opinions of liberals and conservatives. Thus far, most of the attention has been on the militarization of police. In this post, I want to briefly focus on another police tactic, “stop & frisk,” and explain why this likely plays a part in the community unrest following the death of Michael Brown.
In 1968, the Supreme Court decided a case called Terry v. Ohio. In that case, the Court approved the “stop & frisk” tactic. Here is an excerpt from the Court’s opinion:
We … hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. (emphasis added).
Several things must be noted. First, that is a rather sanitized description of what can happen out on the street (more on that below).
Second, in the 1990s, at the suggestion of conservative intellectual, James Q. Wilson, police officials like William Bratton tasked police units to go out and pro-actively stop & frisk city residents. (Wilson is well known for his “broken windows” work, but his misguided promotion of stop & frisk is another reminder that ideas have consequences). The number of stops–especially in New York City–started climbing. The liberal Michael Bloomberg also championed the tactic when he became NYC Mayor after Rudy Giuliani.
Third, what happens if the police act unreasonably and use this tactic arbitrarily against people? Persons holding contraband get busted, but what if there are tens of thousands of stops where the police officer’s actions were unreasonable against totally innocent persons? Absent physical injury, who would take a day off of work to see an attorney about that? And how many attorneys would take a case where there was an illegal 20 minute detention, illegal search of the person, and no injury? No one. For young, black men there has been no effective redress. Anger and tensions simmer. And when a young black man gets killed (recall Amadou Diallo ; and the shooting of Patrick Dorismond is also worth noting) the anger boils over into the protests and unrest we have seen in Ferguson.
The white experience with police is different because the police do not typically use the stop & frisk tactic in white communities. Here is an example of what the complaints are about:
Short version reporting on the video that went viral:
Longer version (recommended):
Because these officers were “caught on tape,” the Philly Police Department was embarrassed and so took disciplinary action. How many bad encounters are not captured on tape? 99%?
Back to the Michael Brown shooting. We have been told that Officer Darren Wilson rolled up on Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson and told them to move to the sidewalk. According to Johnson, Wilson started the interaction by cursing at them. Did Wilson lose his temper after some back talk? Or because he was dissatisfied with the speed with which the young men were complying with his command? Did Wilson escalate the situation by grabbing Brown’s throat, as Johnson has said? Did Brown passively resist by backing away so he could breath? (Recall poor Eric Garner who lost his life waiting for the police to release their grasp!). At some point, Wilson drew his weapon and shot Brown. Several times.
Maybe Wilson was behaving like the abusive Philp Nace in the above video. Maybe his conduct did not come close to that. But these are some of the questions on the minds of minorities (and others) as the investigation continues.
From the Washington Post:
Multiple officers grabbed me. I tried to turn my back to them to assist them in arresting me. I dropped the things from my hands.
“My hands are behind my back,” I said. “I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting.” At which point one officer said: “You’re resisting. Stop resisting.”
That was when I was most afraid — more afraid than of the tear gas and rubber bullets.
As they took me into custody, the officers slammed me into a soda machine, at one point setting off the Coke dispenser. They put plastic cuffs on me, then they led me out the door.
The Michael Brown case is now all over the news. The Washington Post has a front page headline, “FBI Will Investigate Shooting in Mo.” It also has a helpful article, “What do we know about the shooting of Michael Brown, and of Brown himself.” According to the reports, Brown had no history of trouble with the law. He was supposed to start college this week.
Police have not disclosed the identity of the officer who shot and killed Brown. One can imagine the rationale for that. There have been emotional protests and some violence by crowds. Concerns for the officer’s safety, and perhaps for family members, could be the primary rationale. That might justify a slight delay in releasing the name, perhaps to give a family (if there is one) a chance to make some temporary arrangements, or for the department to arrange a security plan on the chance that protesters will go to the neighborhood. However, it has now been several days and it is now necessary and appropriate for the officer to be identified.
The authorities keep saying that their investigation will be thorough. Good. That’s what we want to hear. But deeds are more important than words. At this point, it is important to know whether the officer has been the subject of police brutality lawsuits, and what were the outcomes of those cases. On the other hand, maybe this officer has an unblemished record. That would be good to know as well.
Michael Brown lost his life on Saturday. We need to find out what happened and why. Cases like this have 2 parts–the initial incident and then the response. As bad as the initial incidents are; an inadequate response can be even more disturbing because it can be an indication of deeper problems within the police institution. Fecklessness or, worse, abetting criminal conduct. So far, the police have handled the Brown case very badly.
From the Denver Post:
From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
Two Milwaukee police officers who admitted they were present during invasive body cavity searches that led to felony convictions against a third officer were neither criminally charged nor fired from the department after making deals with prosecutors, according to court records.
One of the two officers, Michael Gasser, was on the scene during a 2010 search that caused the victim to bleed from his anus for several days, according to Gasser’s deposition in a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Not only did Gasser avoid termination, he has been allowed to continue training rookie officers — even though he told internal investigators he didn’t think there was anything wrong with the search, he testified in June.
The second officer, Zachary Thoms, admitted in a deposition that he and Officer Michael Vagnini coerced a suspect to try to defecate into a cardboard box at the District 5 police station in 2011, hoping he would expel hidden drugs.
Meanwhile, two supervisors who were in charge of District 5 while illegal searches were occurring there have been promoted to the highest levels of the department.