God, I’m so sick over all these cop shootings. It’s more clear than ever that the 2nd Amendment is only for white people:
Category: Police State
Freddie Gray Police Van Driver Acquitted in Bench Trial
Thursday morning may prove to be a true turning point in the series of trials stemming from the 2015 arrest and subsequent death of Freddie Gray, events which thrust the City of Baltimore into the international spotlight.
As Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams issued a ruling in the case of Officer Caesar Goodson acquitting the officer of murder charges, many observers believe that the fates of the other officers still awaiting trial may be significantly impacted by the outcome.
Closing Arguments Heard Monday
The defense and prosecution teams presented their closing arguments on Monday in the trial of Goodson, the officer charged with the most serious charge of any of the six police defendants. The charge of second-degree depraved heart murder carries with it a possible sentence of 30 years imprisonment, making closing arguments a high-stakes proposition for Goodson’s lawyers.
Chief Deputy State’s Attorney Michael Schatzow and Deputy State’s Attorney Janice Bledsoe focused on the argument that Goodson, as the police transport van driver, placed Gray in the vehicle while shackled, but failed to restrain him in a seat belt during an intentional “rough ride.” These actions, they assert, caused him to suffer severe and indeed fatal spinal cord injuries for which Goodson declined to seek medical attention.
Defense lawyer Matthew Fraling countered the state’s position by arguing the Freddie Gray was the cause of his own injury and death by engaging in erratic, volatile movement while in the transport van, rather than remaining on the floor of the vehicle, where he was originally placed by officers. Defense attorneys further asserted that no outward sign of Gray’s injuries existed which would have alerted Goodson to the serious distress he was actually suffering.
Questioning By Judge Williams May Offer Key Insights
Judge Williams engaged in active questioning of both sides during closing arguments, particularly during Schatzow’s rebuttal to the defense team’s presentation. In particular, Williams seemed to focus on the state’s assertion that Goodson deliberately harmed Gray by taking him on what is known as a “rough ride” while leaving him unrestrained in the van.
Williams wanted the state to explain what actions taken by Goodson constituted a high level of risk for Gray and precisely what evidence had been given to demonstrate that a rough ride truly did occur. Schatzow was also asked to further explicate the prosecution’s position that Goodson committed criminal negligence by not seeking the aid of a medic.
How Acquittal Could Impact Remaining Defendants
Legal observers have suggested that the outcome of this case may have a significant effect on the defendants still waiting for their day in court. With two previous prosecution efforts failing to produce a single conviction, if Goodson is found not guilty, the state will likely face an uphill battle going forward.
Baltimore Defense Attorney Oleg Fastovsky commented, “The fact that Goodson was found not guilty not only affected the strategies of both sides in the upcoming trials of the remaining officers, but it will also add fuel to the lawsuits filed by the officers against Mosby, and could very well lead to more lawsuits and claims.”
Slated for trial later this summer are Lt. Brian Rice, Officer Garrett Miller and Sgt. Alicia White. Officer William Porter, whose first trial ended in a declared mistrial, is scheduled for retrial in September.
High Speed Police Pursuits: Law Enforcement Liability and Public Safety
I have been writing about this for more than 20 years. Few police departments regulate high-speed chases, and even fewer actually enforce those rules. Yet every year, we see innocent bystanders killed in these chases:
On April 29, 2016, Louise Donner, 66, of Linthicum was killed when she was involved in a head on collision. Ms. Donner was an innocent victim of a high speed police pursuit. Law enforcement officers were involved in a high speed pursuit of Johnathon Simms, 31, of Baltimore.
According to a CBS Baltimore article regarding the accident; law enforcement officers had attempted to pull over Johnathon Simms for speeding. Instead of pulling over, the suspect sped away and the police initiated a high speed pursuit with speeds reaching nearly 90 miles an hour.
After only a few minutes the law enforcement officers decided to back off when Simms turned onto Aviation Boulevard. Once on Aviation Boulevard, Simms sped down the wrong side of the road and crashed head on into Ms. Donner’s vehicle, killing her instantly.
This unfortunate incident is a perfect illustration of innocent victims dying or being seriously injured because of high speed police pursuits.
Although the NHTSA does not have a mandatory reporting system, there are some reports that the actual number of annual fatalities is between 400 and 500. The causes of high speed pursuits can be broken down as follows:
- 42.3% Traffic violation
- 18.2% Vehicle was believed to be stolen
- 14.9% Driver believed to be intoxicated (DWI)
- 8.6% Violent felony
- 7.5% Non-violent felony
- 5.9% Other misdemeanor
- 2.6% Assisting other department
100.0% Total — The IACP Police Pursuit Database, 2008, page 56 (pdf)
Baltimore car accident lawyer John Yannone commented, “Often, it seems that officers engage in high speed pursuits when there is no need, e.g. a traffic violation, and put the public at risk. High speed police pursuits can present a significant public safety concern, especially with suspects who are determined to evade capture.”
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of training, liability, and reporting in relation to high speed police pursuits. There are no standard training or policies regarding high speed pursuits across law enforcement agencies. As evidenced by the above percentages, it seems that many high speed pursuits are unnecessary.
Data privacy vs. national security
The hotly debated issue of national security versus data privacy has been making headlines all over the world due to the iPhone encryption case pitting the US Department of Justice against mammoth technology company Apple Inc.
A US District Court judge in California ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock the encrypted iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters who killed 14 people and seriously injured 22 in December 2015. Apple refused the court order saying it will not destabilize its products’ security features because that would leave customers vulnerable to hackers and other serious cyber threats.
Specifically, the FBI wanted Apple to write and turn over new code that would allow federal data analysts to break Apple’s encryption key. It is asking Apple to develop software that would weaken its own product – create a “backdoor” that would admit government hackers into the heart of its operating system.
Apple CEO Tim Cook’s open letter to customers denounced the FBI’s actions and court order saying, “The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step, which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.”
He followed up with a similar email to all Apple employees thanking them for their support, reiterating that Apple has no sympathy for terrorists, and outlining how Apple has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with investigators and comply with information requests. But he urged prosecutors to withdraw their demand to turn over encryption secrets arguing it sets a dangerous precedent from both a technical and a personal privacy perspective.
Most technology experts and privacy advocates agree with Apple. They say that forcing US companies to weaken their encryption methods would invite attention from unscrupulous hackers, expose private data, threaten Internet security, and give a competitive advantage to technology companies in other countries.
Atlanta Defense Attorney Allen Yates commented, “Apple’s pushback against the government’s aggression in this case is understandable given the tech giant’s desire to protect its products, and more importantly, its customers and the ability to access their data. It is always a sensitive issue when the government invokes national security, but allowing the government unfettered access to United States Citizen’s encrypted data will create a very dangerous precedent and have unknown ramifications on the security of our most popular technologies.”
It’s a controversial topic. On the other side of the debate, the FBI and government supporters strongly disapprove of Apple’s refusal to cooperate. They say Apple must comply due to the highly sensitive nature of information that might reside on the phone. The FBI insists the code would only be used for this iPhone – one that had been in the possession of a known, deadly terrorist with allegiance to ISIS.
Like the Apple CEO, FBI Director James Comey also appealed to the public to gain support. He issued a passionate statement on the internet defending his request and saying that it is solely a question of justice for the victims and not intended to set a precedent of any kind. In his words, “We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land. I hope thoughtful people will take the time to understand that. Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it doesn’t. But we can’t look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we don’t follow this lead.”
While the immediate legal issues surrounding the battle between Apple and the federal government became moot after the FBI hacked the iPhone itself and announced they were dropping the lawsuit, the entire debate between the right to privacy and national security will clearly continue.
No no no not again
13-year-old boy killed for BB gun:
NOLA cops plead guilty
To the post-Hurricane Katrina Danziger Bridge massacre.
They did it. The New Orleans police officers accused of killing and maiming innocent people on Danziger Bridge the Sunday after Hurricane Katrina? And accused of attempting to cover up their crimes by concocting a story that they were under attack? The same officers who were hailed as heroes when they arrived at the courthouse to face state charges? They did it.
In a federal courtroom Wednesday, Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon, Anthony Villavaso and Arthur Kaufman, all accused of crimes related to the Danziger Bridge massacre, stood up one-by-one and admitted what they’ve been denying for more than 10 years.
“Guilty,” Bowen said. “Guilty, your honor,” said the rest.
Their admissions serve as rebuke to all the police apologists who showered them with praise and thought it ridiculous when Eddie Jordan, the former district attorney for Orleans Parish, wrote, “We cannot allow our police officers to shoot and kill our citizens without justification, like rabid dogs.”
Crime and punishment
Former Chicago police 
, who is accused of murdering Laquan McDonald, was rehired by the police union three weeks ago as a janitor. Despite the fact that the Chicago PD already tried to cover up this incident and got caught, they apparently decided to bring the accused back into the fold while he… Continue reading “Crime and punishment”
Cop who stopped Sandra Bland is fired.
Finally. But he should be charged, too.
White man with a gun, black man with a gun
It’s one thing to know this intellectually. It’s another to see it:
https://youtu.be/BKGZnB41_e4
Cops get away with murder again
The weight of this is too much to bear. This time, 12-year-old Tamir Rice, was killed for carrying a toy gun, but it seemed like someone might be punished. We’ve seen the video, no sane person can defend this death. But they did; they refused to indict. It was “reasonable.”
So we’re not having much luck with getting gun violence under control. Maybe we concentrate on outlawing toy guns:
You can shoot a child in an open park. You can lie about the incident. You can refuse to cooperate with investigators. You can, if a Cuyahoga County prosecutor and grand jury are to be believed, escape indictment even when the entire episode is captured on videotape.
Tamir Rice did not deserve to die. The man who killed him, Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann, will never spend a day in prison.
It has been 13 months since Rice was gunned at a Cudell Recreation Center last winter. He was carrying a toy gun, playing imagery games in the snow Nov. 22, 2014, when someone dialed 911 to report a “guy with a gun.” The dispatcher was advised that the “gun” was likely a toy.
Authorities promised a full and fair investigation. In the end, after months of fact-finding, a grand jury refused to indict Officer Loehmann or his partner Frank Garmback, even though the shooting was initially ruled a homicide.
Loehmann shot Rice once in the torso. But that wasn’t his only misdeed that night. Even after he and Garmback realized their mistake—after it dawned on them that Rice was a child, not a “guy,” armed with a toy, not a “gun”—neither man rendered medical aid, as the boy lay mortally wounded on the concrete.
When Rice’s older sister struggled to get to his side, they handcuffed and stuffed her into the back of their cruiser— rather than address her with the compassion she deserved. And, while Tamir lay dead in the morgue, the officers filed criminal charges against him.During a press conference Monday, Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty said he recommended that the panel decline to indict. McGinty claims that the officer’s actions were “not criminal,” but the result of “a perfect storm of errors.”
The grand jury, which has been meeting since October, agreed with McGinty.
But, who can believe the words of a man who once accused a grieving mother of attempting to profit from their child’s death?
“The law gives the benefit of the doubt to the officer who must make split-second decisions,” he told reporters, “when they reasonably believe their lives or those of innocent bystanders are in danger.”
“The Supreme Court,” McGinty proclaimed, “prohibits second-guessing police tactics.”
Throughout the Monday press conference, McGinty repeatedly referred to a “guy with a gun.” That “guy” was a boy who hadn’t been on his first date yet, never kissed a girl and now will never get married or have children of his own. He didn’t get the benefit of the doubt. Rice will not get a second chance or the opportunity to second-guess the actions of that officer.