Rysto
April 26, 2016, 6:21pm
8122
eschereal the seriously twisted:
Actually, the 5th is the one that says “…nor shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process/… just compensation .” The rights of the accused are well-protected by the Constitution – but if you are never accused, you have to fight hard to keep those rights. It is an (un)ethical grey area.
I was going with “unreasonable seizure” from the fourth, but I’m not a lawyer.
So it begins. Lesbian forcibly ejected by police from NC bathroom because she didn’t provide ID proving she was a woman . Despite all the women in the bathroom being in support of her being there, the male cops decide that she’s a threat somehow to their comfort. Go NC!
The video is from December of last year, comments at Occupy Democrats suggest it took place in Indiana. http://www.newnownext.com/aggressive-cop-forces-gay-woman-out-of-womens-bathroom-for-not-having-id/04/2016/ http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/04/27/begins-watch-cops-drag-girl-nc-bathroom-not-looking-like-woman/
That said… I had tears in my eyes because she was using the “correct” bathroom and since when do we need to carry ID at all time here in the USA?
Oops, apologies. I tried to vet it but clearly I didn’t do a good enough job. Still, it’s a scene that’s unacceptable no matter where it occurs.
Interesting story in The Washington Post today:
A tragedy plays out in Little Rock when a police officer kills a colleague’s father
Five years later, the tragic death of Eugene Ellison still haunts Little Rock, splitting the city and its 540-officer police department along racial lines. It shows what can happen when police investigate their own in cases of fatal shootings and end up with results that leave little resolved in the minds of the public. Allegations of favoritism, collusion, conflicts of interest and special treatment have hovered over the case from the beginning, according to interviews, court records and previously undisclosed internal affairs files obtained by The Washington Post.
“I don’t think that we are capable of actually investigating each other because we got too many friendships,” Terrell Vaughn, a black Little Rock homicide detective, told internal affairs investigators examining the Ellison shooting. “I’ve always felt that; that we should never [be] handling our shootings.”
White, the Little Rock detective, said he believed some homicide detectives were protecting their boss’s wife by cutting the feed of her interview.
“I guess we do things differently, huh?” White would later say, according to internal affairs files.
As one commenter put, this guy was killed for having his door open.
I don’t get it. Wouldn’t S.O.P be to hand the investigation to the County Sheriff’s Office? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest??
Our apologist would remind you that these are superior beings who can be trusted to do the right thing at all times. If you don’t believe that, you’re an anarchist.
The article said the State Police declined to investigate because they were only asked five days after the fact:
With questions swirling around the case, then-Police Chief Stuart Thomas, who had recommended against the hiring of Donna Lesher 18 years earlier, asked the Arkansas State Police to conduct an independent investigation of the shooting, out of an “abundance of caution.”
By then, five days had passed. The first 24 hours of a homicide investigation are considered to be critical. The director of the State Police and his criminal investigations commander called Thomas, and they all agreed that too much time had passed.
OK, I cannot get over this line. This has to go into the bad journalism thread.
What happened NEXT is in dispute? Who corroborated what happened BEFORE that?? AFAICT from the story, there are only 3 witnesses to the event. One of them is dead and the other 2 killed him.
No, there were two other LEO’s there, Lucio and Boyce.
I am not seeing that in the cite. I see only two off duty cops acting as private security on the scene. What am I missing?
Probably a result of crappy journalism, but this:
combined with this:
couldn’t have been all that cold.
… and then there’s the completely incestual investigation. Seems like a clusterfuck all around. But then, I’m not surprised.
Sitting in your house while black. It’s almost as serious of a crime as driving while black.
There were four officers at the time she shot him. He had a cane, and her claim was that there was no other way of handling it.
TokyoBayer:
Sitting in your house while black. It’s almost as serious of a crime as driving while black.
There were four officers at the time she shot him. He had a cane, and her claim was that there was no other way of handling it.
The article also mentions how the Little Rock police spokesman characterized the cane as a heavy weapon. Photos of the scene that show the cane seem to indicate it was pretty thin. But, hey, what ever works to justify a shooting because an officer is “afraid for his/her life”.
Stupid guy should have learned to close his door. Then this poor Little Rock officer never would have been subject to this scrutiny.
Interesting stat from this article:
Former South Carolina police officer who fatally shot fleeing driver indicted on federal civil rights violation
Slager was indicted last June by a state grand jury on a murder charge, and could face up to life in prison if he is convicted, according to prosecutors. The exact date of his state trial is up in the air, as state prosecutors — who are also working on the delayed trial against the man accused of killing nine black parishioners in a Charleston church — have asked for it to be pushed back.
He was one of just 10 officers who were charged with a crime in connection to the 990 fatal police shootings last year, according to a Washington Post database.
Federal civil rights charges are even more rare. An investigation earlier this year by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review found that the Justice Department has declined to bring federal charges in 96 percent of the more than 13,000 federal civil rights complaints against police officers they’ve received since 1995.
California deputies charged in beating captured on video
SAN FRANCISCO – Two Northern California sheriff’s deputies were charged with felonies Tuesday in the beating of a suspected car thief in an incident captured on surveillance video.
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon announced that Alameda County sheriff’s deputies Luis R. Santamaria and Paul D. Wieber were each charged with assault with a deadly weapon, assault under color of authority and battery.
Two residents’ surveillance cameras captured deputies continuing to beat the suspect with steel batons as he lay on the ground, crying out in pain. In addition, Gascon said one of the deputies’ body-worn cameras appears to have accidentally turned on .
[My italics]
D’oh!
dasmoocher:
The article also mentions how the Little Rock police spokesman characterized the cane as a heavy weapon. Photos of the scene that show the cane seem to indicate it was pretty thin. But, hey, what ever works to justify a shooting because an officer is “afraid for his/her life”.
If cannot subdue a 67 year old man with a cane without shooting him, then you need to find a new line of work.
Or maybe they should stop hiring cowards.
Had the video for at least 5 months, just arresting these guys now. I guess they’ve been busy.
mhendo
May 12, 2016, 12:07am
8139
When a driver pulls over after a police chase and gets on the ground to surrender, what do you do if you only have nine cops (most with guns drawn), plus a police dog, to deal with him?
You start beating the crap out of him, of course.
The action starts at about 50 seconds in the video. What is perhaps most amazing about this is that, as soon as the news cameraman realizes that they’ve started pummeling the guy, he zooms out instead of staying close in on the action. So much for a curious and dogged media.
mhendo:
What is perhaps most amazing about this is that, as soon as the news cameraman realizes that they’ve started pummeling the guy, he zooms out instead of staying close in on the action. So much for a curious and dogged media.
I’m pretty sure that’s more about the fact that they were broadcasting the shot live, and local news shows are very averse to showing graphic violence.
Awfully fucked up and terrible police action, though.
mhendo
May 12, 2016, 6:43am
8141
You’re probably right, but i thought that’s what you have 10-second delays (or whatever) for: so you can cut away but also keep filming while not exposing the sensitive people at home to the depressing brutality of their public servants.
To be honest, for stuff like this, maybe it would be better if the news programs were more willing to show graphic violence. Maybe the comfortable moms and dads sitting at home in the 'burbs would take more interest in curbing the malfeasance of police officers if they were forced to confront it a bit more directly.