Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[Delphic Oracle]

Sorry, wasn’t trying to be condescending or snarky. I’m just always mad at how many constitutional rights Americans have demanded be taken away in just my short four decades

I have to remind myself of this every so often, most of the legislation and jurisprudence that brought forth and maintained broad(er) civil rights came about in a brief period and not all that long ago. The educators that impressed upon me the significance of these moments were drawing from there own lived experiences. Social Security isn't even 100 years old.

The Warren Court and the furious pace of landmark legislation that coincided with it made a world I took for granted for a long while.

I quite agree that we appear to have relied on momentum or some other expectation that the struggle must necessarily go only one direction. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Cop's lies reveal gap in how KPD commanders review use of force incidents

Police and prosecutors saddled her with six criminal charges, including a felony charge of evading arrest.

But the truth was on Clark's side. Roberts lied repeatedly, to other cops and in written reports, about his pursuit and arrest of Clark. In December, Judge Tony Stansberry dismissed every single charge, calling the whole encounter "disturbing."


...

False statements in Roberts’ incident and use of force reports based on the video reviewed by Knox News:

Roberts wrote Clark turned on East Fifth Avenue “at a high rate of speed causing the tires to squawk.” — This is false. She turned, but her tires did no squeal, according to the available video.
Roberts wrote “I proceeded to catch up with the vehicle ...” — This is false. He never caught up to the vehicle until it stopped on Linden Avenue.
Roberts wrote “Once I got behind the vehicle ...” — Again, this is false. He was never close to the vehicle until it stopped on Linden.
Roberts wrote the car “accelerated ...” — This is false, or at the very least it is impossible to tell from his vantage point 100+ yards behind Clark.
Roberts wrote “The vehicle was actively fleeing officers ...” — This is false. Roberts never turned on his emergency equipment , which is against department policy, and Clark had no reason to believe she was being pursued.
Roberts wrote he had his emergency lights turned on when Clark got out of her vehicle. — This is false. Clark was already out of her car, parked on Linden Avenue by the time he pulled up and turned on his lights.

Cop lies about everything to justify a dangerous chase and violent arrest of a black woman who did nothing wrong and was simply driving by a police stop on a residential street.

Good thing there's dash and bodycam, surely the department will sort this out:

At least three of Roberts’ supervisors viewed camera footage as part of their standard use of force review. Lt. James Burrell and Sgt. James Cox viewed only the body camera footage, while Capt. Susan Coker viewed both the body and dashboard camera footage, according to the department’s use of force document.

Their only complaint? Roberts’ foul language to the women in the house and his continued cursing at Clark while attempting to handcuff her.

3 supervisors looked it over and found essentially no problem. The judge in the case would later dismiss all the charges, including a felony, as totally unsubstantiated.

The cop would later be criminally charged for lying again about a vehicle chase that resulted in a serious traffic collision.

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2022/05/17/knoxville-police-officers-joseph-roberts-lies-review-use-force/7393688001/

 

[bruto]

Cop lies about everything to justify a dangerous chase and violent arrest of a black woman who did nothing wrong and was simply driving by a police stop on a residential street.

Good thing there's dash and bodycam, surely the department will sort this out:



3 supervisors looked it over and found essentially no problem. The judge in the case would later dismiss all the charges, including a felony, as totally unsubstantiated.

The cop would later be criminally charged for lying again about a vehicle chase that resulted in a serious traffic collision.

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/2022/05/17/knoxville-police-officers-joseph-roberts-lies-review-use-force/7393688001/

....and in another thread we get the suggestion that it's the fault of black people that they so overwhelmingly consider race as a part of their identity.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

City of Raleigh paying out a settlement of a woman who was falsely arrested after she requested the badge number of a cop that ran over her foot at a protest.

The video shows Williams blocking Scioli on his motorcycle and yelling at him before he rode away. As he left, he ran over her foot, according to Williams and her attorneys.

Not long after, she tells Scioli that his motorcycle ran over her foot, and she asks him for his badge number. Scioli later directs officers to approach a marching crowd and detain her.

“It’s going to be the little girl with the megaphone, right in the back corner,” he says while on his motorcycle.

...

The police department concluded their investigation of Scioli and said its results were not public record, a spokeswoman told The N&O last week. Scioli remains employed at the department, the spokeswoman said.

Oops all bad apples

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article261319277.html

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sweetheart plea deal allows cop who beat restrained prisoner to avoid a felony conviction.

former St. Albans police officer, captured on video punching a handcuffed woman in the face while she was in police custody, has reached a plea deal with prosecutors that caps the amount of jail time he faces at six months.

During a video hearing Wednesday in Franklin County Superior criminal court, Jason Lawton, 33, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of simple assault for striking Amy Connelly of Highgate in March 2019 at the St. Albans police station.

As part of a plea agreement, Lawton’s sentencing will be contested, with prosecutors allowed to ask for a jail term of up to six months while his attorney can argue for a lesser sentence.

...

Maley then said that, from his reading of the charging affidavit, Lawton pushed Connelly into a wall twice, punched her, and then dragged her, causing her head to hit the ground.

“I count, by that, four assaults,” the judge said.

Maley then added, “It’s the state’s decision as to how this case was charged, and here we are.”

System protects their own once again.

https://vtdigger.org/2022/05/18/ex-st-albans-cop-admits-punching-handcuffed-woman-in-the-face-awaits-sentencing/

 

[Darat]

Sweetheart plea deal allows cop who beat restrained prisoner to avoid a felony conviction.



System protects their own once again.

https://vtdigger.org/2022/05/18/ex-st-albans-cop-admits-punching-handcuffed-woman-in-the-face-awaits-sentencing/

As you said about a previous case above "3 supervisors looked it over and found essentially no problem" - in their work-culture there was indeed no problem in what their fellow police officers did! And that is the problem we see time and time again the police avoiding addressing.

 

[shemp]

Florida man "cooked alive" after deputy's taser ignites fuel at gas station, lawyers say

Attorneys for a Florida man say he is still fighting for his life after being "cooked alive" in February when a sheriff's deputy allegedly deployed a taser while the man was covered in gas while fueling his motorbike. Jean Barreto, 26, has third-degree burns over 75% of his body, his lawyers said Wednesday.

CBS Miami reports that surveillance video from the February 27 incident shows flames erupting near one of the pumps as deputies tried to take Beretta into custody at the Wawa station.

The sheriff's office said deputies tried to arrest Beretta because he was part of a group of bikers who were pointing guns at people in the county. During a traffic stop, they said Beretta fled but deputies caught up with him at the Wawa.

A witness at the gas station said he heard a taser being deployed, but Osceola Sheriff Marcos Lopez has not confirmed that one was used, CBS Miami reported. However, a Fire Marshal's Office report concluded, that "the most probable cause of the fire was an electric discharge from the deputies deploying a department-issued Taser device."

Beretta's attorney Mark Nejame says his client was "bum-rushed from behind" by the sheriff's deputy, and his dirt bike fell over, spilling gas on Barreto and the deputy. His lawyers say at three more deputies arrived and one of them "proceeded to employ the use of a taser on Mr. Barreto, engulfing almost his entire body in flames and approximately half of the other deputy's as well."

"While being cooked alive, Mr. Barreto sustained third degree burns on approximately 75% of his body, front and back from his feet to the bottom of his neck," Nejame said.

That's some fine police work there! How ******* stupid and callous do you have to be to not realize that using a taser on a man doused in gasoline is an incredibly stupid idea? Also, the deputy that was also soaked in gasoline suffered burns over 50% of his body as well. The deputy that used the taser didn't give a **** about his safety either! Of course, the Sheriff's office is doing everything they can to obstruct justice.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh we had to add "Don't shoot electricity at gasoline" to the list of things it's just sooooooo unreasonable to expect cops to know, right next to "Black people need oxygen to live" and "what apartment you live in" a while back.

 

[mgidm86]

His lawyers say at three more deputies arrived and one of them "proceeded to employ the use of a taser......

I really like the repeatedly used "cooked alive" phrase, that's a good one. The guy on the motorcycle is so stupid I find it difficult to sympathize with him. In fact I don't at all. The country is full of ******** and this guy is obviously one of them. I'm nearing my tolerance limit, so **** him and **** the cop.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I really like the repeatedly used "cooked alive" phrase, that's a good one. The guy on the motorcycle is so stupid I find it difficult to sympathize with him. In fact I don't at all. The country is full of ******** and this guy is obviously one of them. I'm nearing my tolerance limit, so **** him and **** the cop.

From what I read the victim was filling up his motorcycle tank when the cop tackled him and the gas spilled over both of them but mostly on the victim.

Was the victim resisting arrest? Had he tried to flee? Was the cop pissed because the guy on the bike didn't stop or something?

I mean besides whatever happened earlier with a group of motorcyclists being ******** on the street, did the victim fight the cops at this point? He was at a gas station buying gas.

Cops are supposed to arrest people, not get revenge because of some contempt of cop real or perceived.

I'm more than willing to consider your POV but I need to know how you perceive the events because it's different from how I perceive them.

 

[Bob001]

I really like the repeatedly used "cooked alive" phrase, that's a good one. The guy on the motorcycle is so stupid I find it difficult to sympathize with him. In fact I don't at all. The country is full of ******** and this guy is obviously one of them. I'm nearing my tolerance limit, so **** him and **** the cop.

What in that link makes you think the guy is "so stupid" that he deserved to be burned over 75% of his body? Think hard: Could four cops have effected an arrest, if it was justified, without knocking the guy and his bike over, spilling gasoline everywhere and setting him on fire? Could they?

 

[bruto]

From what I read the victim was filling up his motorcycle tank when the cop tackled him and the gas spilled over both of them but mostly on the victim.

Was the victim resisting arrest? Had he tried to flee? Was the cop pissed because the guy on the bike didn't stop or something?

I mean besides whatever happened earlier with a group of motorcyclists being ******** on the street, did the victim fight the cops at this point? He was at a gas station buying gas.

Cops are supposed to arrest people, not get revenge because of some contempt of cop real or perceived.

I'm more than willing to consider your POV but I need to know how you perceive the events because it's different from how I perceive them.

Of course we don't really know the whole story, and have only the cops' account, which suggests that the variably-spelled victim was a bad guy. If this were a "while black" headed thread, there would now be a flood of people saying that the obvious should not be considered obvious yet, until all the papers are filed and the 8 x 10 glossies examined. I'm willing, in this case, to suspend the reciprocity and concede that the victim probably really was a bad guy if the cops are telling the truth that he was engaged in threatening behavior and then fled from a stop.

But one wonders why the deputy felt he had to tackle the victim while he was gassing up his bike - pretty likely not to be in a position to get on it and ride it off. That sounds like at least imprudent behavior and suggests a vengeful attitude. And the cop who fired the taser is an utter idiot. I would have thought that he's proven he should not be handling dangerous weapons and devices.

 

[Darat]

What in that link makes you think the guy is "so stupid" that he deserved to be burned over 75% of his body? Think hard: Could four cops have effected an arrest, if it was justified, without knocking the guy and his bike over, spilling gasoline everywhere and setting him on fire? Could they?

And as ever it has to be said that just because police are trying to arrest someone doesn't mean that person is guilty of anything.

 

[Babbylonian]

And as ever it has to be said that just because police are trying to arrest someone doesn't mean that person is guilty of anything.

He had a motorcycle and they were looking for a "group of bikers who were pointing guns at people in the county." He obviously deserved whatever he got.

Seriously, this is great stuff. They were obviously responding to a 9-1-1 call which means there's no real evidence of a crime, likely no descriptions beyond "bikers," and thus little reason to pull anyone over let alone engage in a violent arrest.

**** all police everywhere.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Using civil asset forfeiture to steal from citizens is so last year. Using civil asset forfeiture to extort citizens is the new hotness:

Michigan Couple Says Town Seized Their Building and Offered To Return It if They Bought Two Cars for Police

In a response to an interrogatory filed in the Kozbials' subsequent lawsuit against Highland Park, a city police officer answered "none" when asked to identify any predicate felony offenses justifying the seizure.

Things then took a highly unusual turn when the Kozbials say they received a settlement offer from the town: Stop growing marijuana and buy two vehicles for the local police department.

A February 24, 2021, email provided to Reason by the Kozbials' attorney, Marc Deldin, shows that a Highland Park police officer, ferrying a message from city attorney Terry Ford, sent the Kozbials quotes for two cars from a local Ford dealership, totaling about $70,000.

https://reason.com/2022/05/19/michigan-couple-says-town-seized-their-building-and-offered-to-return-it-if-they-bought-two-cars-for-police/

 

[shemp]

Using civil asset forfeiture to steal from citizens is so last year. Using civil asset forfeiture to extort citizens is the new hotness:



https://reason.com/2022/05/19/michigan-couple-says-town-seized-their-building-and-offered-to-return-it-if-they-bought-two-cars-for-police/

Looks like the county's been in the extortion business for quite some time.

Wayne County, where Highland Park is located, has an aggressive asset forfeiture program, particularly for cars. It seized more than 2,600 vehicles between 2017 and 2019, raking in more than $1.2 million in asset forfeiture revenues, according to public records obtained by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free market Michigan think tank.

Of those, 473 were not accompanied by a criminal conviction, and in 438 of those cases, no one was even charged with a crime. In 10 cases, the cars were seized under suspicion of a drug violation, even though the records say police didn't find any drugs.

Wayne County prosecutors typically offer to settle such forfeiture cases and return the owner's car for a $900 payment, plus towing and storage fees. (You can see one such forfeiture notice here.)

Deldin says, though, that the Kozbials' forfeiture case was never properly routed through the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office did not immediately return a request for comment. In a statement to WXYZ Detroit, a spokesperson for the prosecutor's office said it was not aware that the city was negotiating its own settlement.

I like that last paragraph. Sounds like the city tried to shaft the county out of their cut of the take.

And once again, the importance of a free press:

Today, a day after WXYZ Detroit reported on the fiasco, Highland Park informed the Kozbials that it would be giving them back their building. Their lawsuit is still ongoing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have legit halfway wondered if pitting various LEO departments against each other is our best bet.

 

[pgwenthold]

in 438 of those cases, no one was even charged with a crime.

You know, we have those who are 1A zealots and 2A zealots, but damn, we need to get people to care about the 4th amendment.

How can "they weren't even charged with a crime but we took their car anyway" NOT be an "unreasonable .... siezure"

And that was more than 15% of the cars they siezed, where no one was ever charged with a crime.

 

[jimbob]

You know, we have those who are 1A zealots and 2A zealots, but damn, we need to get people to care about the 4th amendment.

How can "they weren't even charged with a crime but we took their car anyway" NOT be an "unreasonable .... siezure"

And that was more than 15% of the cars they siezed, where no one was ever charged with a crime.

Indeed

And a bizarre bit of sophistry to get around it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Long story short and over simplified because back in the 80s civil fortune got name dropped as a way to fight "drugs" at moment in history where you could do anything if you claim it was fighting drugs and then it became too inciting a tool to make money to get rid of after that.

The long version, from Wiki

Since 1980, the War on Drugs has led to substantially increased civil forfeiture by federal, state, and local government. The market for illegal drugs in the United States is large: the Drug Enforcement Administration estimates the annual profit from selling illegal drugs is $12 billion. However, it has become harder for criminal organizations to launder drug money by means of the financial system; drug cartels have thus preferred bulk cash payments. The initial intent behind increased civil forfeiture was thus to use forfeitures as a weapon against drug kingpins, similarly to how forfeiture was used to fight alcohol trafficking during the Prohibition era.

According to journalist Sarah Stillman, a major turning point in forfeiture activity was the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.
This law permitted local and federal law enforcement agencies to share seized assets. According to Stillman, civil forfeiture allowed federal and local governments to "extract swift penalties from white-collar criminals and offer restitution to victims of fraud". From 1985 to 1993, authorities confiscated $3 billion of cash and other property based on the federal Asset Forfeiture Program, which included both civil and criminal forfeitures. The methods were supported by the Reagan administration as a crime fighting strategy:

It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation.

— Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989.

The politics of civil forfeiture were somewhat unusual. The federal forfeiture laws were introduced and pushed through Congress by Republicans in the 1980s, with some Democrats supportive and some critical. Additionally, some libertarian-leaning Republican members of Congress have been critical of civil forfeiture, considering it offensive to property rights. Civil liberties organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have long been opponents of civil forfeiture. A common criticism of civil forfeiture is that it adversely affects minorities and people from low-income communities (whose seizures are typically less than $500).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#War_on_Drugs_(1980–present)