Remember the disturbing video of a woman arrested for DWI (November ‘07), argues/is combative with police officer, then the video stops and then resumes with her laying in a pool of blood? (Yes, a frickin’ pool, not a few drops or few ounces.)
According to varying sources, she had a broken nose (resulting in horrific black eyes), a severe cut to her forehead, and couple of teeth broken, and possibly a broken cheekbone. She looked like she’d been through hell.
The officer was fired, but not charged, and the DWI charge was dropped and Garbarino settled out of court for $400,000.
Officer Willis was reinstated today by the Civil Service Board (with a year and a half of back pay) because his rights were violated by the polygraph (during investigation) not being recorded (or videotaped, as required by the Officer’s Bill of Rights). The operator hired to do the 'graph says he was not made aware of the requirement to do so.
Willis says she fell on her face while trying to get out of room, she says she was brutalized. We’ll never know for sure, because the camera was turned off by Willis.
I can not grok how turning the camera off, in and of itself, is not enough grounds to keep this guy off the force. Yet not having a camera rolling on his poly is enough grounds to reinstate him. This whole thing just sickens me.
Since when was there an exclusionary rule for evidence that wasn’t gathered entirely by the book for a fucking JOB? There is no inalienable right to have some particular job. It’s not a court of law. Doesn’t public safety come first? Can a drunken bus driver keep his job because an investigator made some mistake? How about a suicidal airline pilot?
It seems pretty obvious that he is NOT guilty of assault and battery.
The standard of proof for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Only two people know what went on in that room, and they disagree.
That’s why she filed a civil suit and that’s why she settled that civil suit for 400k- because the standard of proof is lower and both sides found a monetary number that, while it will not make her whole, they can live with.
Similarly, Officer Wiggins was reinstated because he was guaranteed certain rights which were admittedly violated. Unlike with Ms. Garbarino, here is no question about whether rights were violated. Thus, reinstatement.
It seems pretty obvious that he would not be found guilty. It certainly is obvious that he’s actually guilty.
Did you see the pictures of her face? Mr. Willis explained the injuries as the result of a fall on the floor- show me somebody who can fall on a flat floor and injure every surface of her face, and I’ll show you Gumby.
How about this, Gumby:
1.Get drunk.
2. Have someone cuff your hands behind your back.
3. Fall face first onto a tile floor.
4. Profit (to the tune of $400 large).
This much is clear from the video: A beligerent woman is being uncooperative with a police officer who is attempting to administer a sobriety test. Among other things, she’s demanding a phone call she has no right to make immediately, despite what she thinks she’s learned from television and movies. The event is video taped becase, as we learned from Corporal Bill Goodin of the Shreveport Police Department, video footoage is used to document such testing. Also, according to Corporal Goodin, the video camera is turned off after the tests are completed.
Have you considered the possibility that the officer determined that, given this person’s resitance, he would not be able to adminsiter a breathalyzer, but her conduct on tape alone was sobriety test enough, so he turned off the camera, only to turn it back on to document an injury and his reaction to the same? Why turn it back on at all, if turning it off was porotocol?
Did I mention him turning off the camera at all? No. Why don’t you try reading my post, and maybe get yourself a cup of coffee or something, and come back later? There’s a good… boy/girl.
Interesting that, for all the blood that was spilled, none of it got on the officer who allegedly beat her. Nor were there any marks on the knuckles of his right hand, if he punched her with that hand. Nor does the officer in question seem very agitated or upset when the camera is turned back on - if he was angry enough to beat the crap out of this woman, he calmed down quite fast.
You said, “It certainly is obvious that he’s actually guilty.” I assumed you arrived at this conclsuion based on the the fact that there was a gap in the video footage (obviously nothing in the footage would allow you to arrive at that conclusion). Apparently, you divined your conclusion some other way. On what do you base your coclusion that “he’s actually guilty” if not the suspicion created by the gap in footage?
I arrived at this conclusion based on the extent of her injuries. Her entire face is black and blue, not just her nose and the area around the orbital bones.
It should be noted that the video is “excerpts from video” and that even before the camera is turned off, there are obvious continuity gaps. Also that just before the camera is cut off, they are struggling in a circle (with officer holding cuffs as fulcrum), then there is a gap and she is suddenly seated, head down, compliant, and you don’t see her face again (although she does answer in a clear enough voice to make me doubt her nose/teeth were already broken).
I’m not impressed by the lack of blood on officer either- he could have easily grabbed her hair and slammed her head multiple times in to wall “helping her out the door”, not to mention a baton, the chair, etc. With no timestamp, for all we know he went and showered in the locker room. He also might have turned the camera back on because he realized they was no way to take her thru a more public hallway to the next processing area without people noticing her injuries (not to mention explaining a pint or two of blood on the floor). As for his lack of anger…well, there are the lapses in continuity (she becomes very suddenly compliant), the fact that he knew he was on camera, mounting frustration resulting from the mounting combativeness of the woman, etc.
On the flip side…higher entities also had the option to charge him and did not (although I understand there was a bit of a local scandal over a grand jury not being convened), none of us knows the results of the poly or even the specific testimony of the officer or the woman, etc. etc.
It’s a poor policy that allows cameras to be turned off while an officer is alone with a drunk, resistant woman, allows a handcuffed person to fall that severely (if that happened), and allows an internal investigation to commit a procedural error so gross that it reverses a firing.
All that being said, I can take the flat palm of my hand and by slightly compressing my nose, touch my forehead, nose, and lips, so adding a fall…but I still personally think (which is worth a bucket of warm piss) that something stinks here.
It certianly appears that the cop brutalized her, except that her injuries are potentially consistent with a basliar skull fracture. Admittedly, this typically happens by a person being struck in the back of the head, but the potential exists that a face-first fall onto hard pavement would make the battle’s sign or racoon eyes shown above.
The idea that you have someone in your care that is both drunk and pissed off is precisely a reason to violate ‘protocol’ and leave the camera on so when her face hit the pavement, you wouldn’t be held liable. The actions of the cop stink, but only circumstantially, which is good enough for civil court.
Black eyes are common after a broken nose (cite) and are not necessarily a separate injury. It’s quite possible to fall face-first and break your nose and some teeth, and suffer injuries like this woman did. Of course, it is also possible to get it from being punched in the face.
I skimmed the articles, and I did not see where the woman described what she claimed the officer did to her. Did she claim he punched her?
If she has any smarts, which I suspect is questionable at best, she should claim that he slammed her to the ground face-first. That would close enough to his story to be believable.
His name is Wiley? I think I am going to have to lean toward some sort of accident as well, probably some darned Acme handcuff malfunction. I hate when that happens.
Absolutely true. she was gaming the system and deserved to be beaten. She planned it all along to get 400k ,which she knew she could get just by getting her face smashed up. How she got the cameras turned off ,i don’t know. she was really good at it though.
I presume she can no longer discuss the incident as a term of the settlement.
Interesting side note:
I Googled “Wesley Willis Shreveport” and the fifth hit was a S***mfront thread entitled, “Law Enforcement Brutality Against Aryan Woman”. I guess they figured Wesley Willis sounded like a black guy.
