If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
This is where I'll point out that the cops faced what we asked for – a jury trial – and their peers cleared them of wrong doing. I don't have the pulse of the public on this topic; Whether most agree or disagree with the verdict. Or if his life was devalued because he was mentally ill and/or poor. Perhaps I'm missing some key detail. Maybe their lawyers were that good.
I have commentary on this, but there's an important detail which baffles me, and I don't think I can solidify my opinion without understanding it.
The main cop was charged with second degree murder, meaning he tried to kill the guy, and involuntary manslaughter.
I hadn't heard this before, but I have heard of studies that conservatives have a part of the brain that perceives threats that is larger than liberals.
I would be surprised if the conservatives here let this go without challenging it, but not surprised if this was true.
Another NYPD shooting. Looks to be completely justified, they showed a great deal of patience in this instance (the man had just attacked a 22 year-old Jewish student with a knife).
Levi Rosenblatt was praying when Calvin Peters barged inside, whipped out a knife with a 5-inch blade and attacked him, witnesses said.
“Levi had his hands up, trying to block the individual with his arms,” Mendy Notik, 22, said. “He was saying, ‘I will kill you.’ And after Levi, he went towards another young student and he said, ‘I will kill the Jews!’”
Notik said Rosenblatt, an Israeli, was bloodied but somehow managed to escape.
“He had blood on his shoulder, coming out from the side of his head, and he was screaming, ‘He stabbed me! He stabbed me!’” Notik said of his friend. “He was in a panic.”
Summoned by other screaming yeshiva students, Police Officer Timothy Donohue, who is based at the Chabad-Lubavitch World Headquarters in Crown Heights, called for backup and raced inside to confront Peters.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Remember when I told you guys much earlier in the thread about how STL County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was found to have deliberately mischaracterized grand jury testimony to the public in a previous high-profile case where two unarmed black men were killed by white police officers? Suffice it say that I am not surprised about this latest development in the least ...
A grand juror is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch in an effort to speak out on what happened in the Darren Wilson case. Under typical circumstances, grand jurors are prohibited by law from discussing cases they were involved in.
The grand juror, referred to only as "Grand Juror Doe" in the lawsuit, takes issue with how McCulloch characterized the case. McCulloch released evidence presented to the grand jury and publicly discussed the case after the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, then a Ferguson police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African American.
“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”
“From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.
In the lawsuit filed Monday in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues that this case is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply.
In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.
As the grand juror points out in the lawsuit, the Wilson case was handled in a very different manner than other grand juries. Instead of recommending a charge, McCulloch's office presented thousands of pages worth of evidence and testimony before the grand jury. At one point, McCulloch's spokesman characterized the grand jury as co-investigators.
“From [Doe]’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit says.
McCulloch has done several interviews since the grand jury decision was announced on Nov. 24, but the grand jurors have been prohibited from speaking about the case. The county prosecutor admits that some of the witnesses were lying, but said the grand jurors were aware..
The 12 people who could say for sure are currently sworn to secrecy.
Although the county released redacted transcripts of witness and expert testimony, the grand jurors deliberated without a court reporter or member of the prosecutor’s office present.
State law says that grand jurors shall not “disclose any evidence given” nor “the name of any witness who appeared before them,” adding that any juror who violates that is guilty of a misdemeanor. The ACLU is asking a judge to grant an injunction that prohibits enforcing those laws (or threatening to) in this case.
The laws “prevent [the grand juror] from discussing truthful information about a matter of public significance,” the lawsuit says. “As applied in the circumstances of this case, the challenged laws act as a prior restraint on [Doe’s] expressive activity.”
We have reached out to McCulloch’s office for comment and will update when we hear back.
Remember when I told you guys much earlier in the thread about how STL County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was found to have deliberately mischaracterized grand jury testimony to the public in a previous high-profile case where two unarmed black men were killed by white police officers? Suffice it say that I am not surprised about this latest development in the least ...
I don't know about how unorthodox it would be, but the juror certainly has a point that this guys is out there painting a portrait of his choosing regarding the Grand Jury trial.
I look forward to how the County Prosecutor responds to the case.
If your name is Jamal or Kanesha Martins or some other "black" first name, yes that's possible. If it's Joshua or Mary Martins maybe not. At least you get a call if your name is Joshua or Mary Martins. Try applying for a job when your name is Jesus or Maria Martinez. Try this one on for size. My wife was out of work for almost three years. She has housekeeping experience from when her family ran a motel in Joliet. She applied for a job at The Phoenician Resort. She got a call the next day, but once they heard her voice, (English speaker,Chicago accent, not Spanish) they suddenly needed "more recent experience". They saw the last name, Chavez, and thought Mexican. My wife is Eastern European/Italian.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
You're going to have to be a little more explicit of what you're trying to communicate to me with all these questions. You seem to acknowledge that bias exists. I have said bias exists. Where do we go from here?
OAW answered my absolutist question. The ones that are racist or corrupt are protected by the thin blue line. I just wanted to know if anyone believes there are any good cops. Is that a better question?
OAW answered my absolutist question. The ones that are racist or corrupt are protected by the thin blue line. I just wanted to know if anyone believes there are any good cops. Is that a better question?
No, because it is incredibly stupid. A child could tell you that there are good x and bad x.
OAW answered my absolutist question. The ones that are racist or corrupt are protected by the thin blue line. I just wanted to know if anyone believes there are any good cops. Is that a better question?
Of course there are good cops.
But you have to admit, the NYPD's tantrum makes them hard to take seriously. They think they deserve unconditional support. They ignored the pleas if their commissioner to not mar a funeral of a fellow officer with their own grievances. And they couldn't do it. The good cops? The ones that didn't turn their backs.
But you have to admit, the NYPD's tantrum makes them hard to take seriously. They think they deserve unconditional support. They ignored the pleas if their commissioner to not mar a funeral of a fellow officer with their own grievances. And they couldn't do it. The good cops? The ones that didn't turn their backs.
This made me lose my remaining respect for the NYPD and removed any doubt in my mind that the NYPD has a serious problem on their hands with what their job actually is. It's time we put them in their place.
Unfortunately, whatever color you are and wherever you live, cops are best avoided. I truly believe the vast majority of them are good people, but their failure and inability take action when one of their own goes bad demonstrates culture of contempt and disrespect for the people they work for. The last thing you ever want to do is involve the police. It's just too much of a gamble.
This made me lose my remaining respect for the NYPD and removed any doubt in my mind that the NYPD has a serious problem on their hands with what their job actually is. It's time we put them in their place.
Yeah that's a condensed version of the video I posted a little while ago. BTW ... not sure if you realize it or not but you can embed it directly in the thread with the [youtube] tags wrapped around the identifier portion to the right of the equal sign in the URL.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Unfortunately, whatever color you are and wherever you live, cops are best avoided. I truly believe the vast majority of them are good people, but their failure and inability take action when one of their own goes bad demonstrates culture of contempt and disrespect for the people they work for. The last thing you ever want to do is involve the police. It's just too much of a gamble.
Can you imagine being in a position where you need to decide if you should call the police for a mentally ill relative or friend who has lost control?
Can you imagine being in a position where you need to decide if you should call the police for a mentally ill relative or friend who has lost control?
As it happens...
There's a bar in my neighborhood that a bunch of us get together every Tuesday night for trivia. A mentally disabled man is a regular and works at the bar (everyone knows him by name, but i won't reveal it here). He lives in the neighborhood will go up to just about anyone to have a conversation.
One night a few nights ago, the police were chasing a suspect through the neighborhood and lost him. They saw our on the sidewalk and for whatever reason mistook him for the suspect they were chasing just a few minutes prior. Our ran home to his parents when the police literally started running after him, where the cops busted in and roughed him up while trying to arrest him (he is a pretty big dude). The cops just saw someone running and like an untrained dog chased him and brought him down, inside his house where his parents were powerless to help him.
It made the local news, and since everyone in the neighborhood (including most of the police) know him well he was released very shortly thereafter.
I guess the difference between where I live and the places with bad news coming out of them are that the cop involved in this was suspended a day later and fired two weeks later. Though in thinking about it now, that cop probably got a job somewhere else.
The thin blue line, the shield, whatever you call it has to go. Sorry guys, you couldn't handle it so we're going to take it from you. Cops who protect criminal cops should go down just as hard, if not harder for the trust they've betrayed. It's up to us to make sure that happens, because the police will not protect us from bad cops.
No, because it is incredibly stupid. A child could tell you that there are good x and bad x.
Communication on the Internet lacks the nuance of RL communication. Positions which are not absolute can appear so, and something which is a simple statement of opinion can appear like it's intended to be a refutation of what it comes after.
You've been uncharacteristically nasty lately. Is everything okay?
Remember when I told you guys much earlier in the thread about how STL County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was found to have deliberately mischaracterized grand jury testimony to the public in a previous high-profile case where two unarmed black men were killed by white police officers? Suffice it say that I am not surprised about this latest development in the least ...
You don't have to convince me McCullogh is an asshole, but I knew which evidence was relevant, and which was CYA.
If I were on the GJ, I'd be pissed off he wasted so much time, but he didn't make it impossible, or even difficult to perform my duty... he just made it long and boring.
This made me lose my remaining respect for the NYPD and removed any doubt in my mind that the NYPD has a serious problem on their hands with what their job actually is. It's time we put them in their place.
I get the feeling most big city police have this problem. Bureaucracy insulates them at this point.
My knee-jerk thought is it favors the defense. They're not the ones usually drawing things out.
The one (civil) jury I was on got me pissed off at the plaintiff for suing over stupid shit. That didn't ultimately stop me for finding in the plaintiff's favor, but it affected the award. We gave him $1.
I'm not sure petty is the right word here. They're basically striking while getting paid for it. Which is weirdly ok because the alternative is a real strike where you have no one around if a real emergency arises.
The amusing part is, they've probably improved a lot of New Yorkers daily lives because they're not getting hit with nuisance fines. I'd love for local minorities to weigh in on whether they notice a difference.
The amusing part is, they've probably improved a lot of New Yorkers daily lives because they're not getting hit with nuisance fines. I'd love for local minorities to weigh in on whether they notice a difference.
I was actually thinking the same thing.
The irony that the forum postings which have surfaced (see above) are actually cannon fodder for the critics of police violence isn't lost on us either. You could have said that only a small fraction supports that, but the numbers (e. g. decrease in arrests and fines) speak for themselves.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I don't know why GJ's don't say screw the presented evidence and hand down an indictment and let chips fall. Reverse jury nullifiction.
The thing is at this stage in the game we don't know exactly what the GJ vote was nor how it was broken down demographically by gender and race. STL County Prosecutor McCulloch implied that the vote was unanimous during his rambling and smug performance at the press conference ... but that's not necessarily the case. The juror who sued him in order to be released from the secrecy oath implied otherwise in the lawsuit ... but we just don't know at this point. In STL County it takes 9 votes out of 12 to indict. So as few as FOUR jurors could have blocked an indictment.
My bad. What I meant to say was "we don't know exactly what the GJ vote was nor how it was broken down demographically by gender and race." That was meant to set the stage for the remainder of the post. I've corrected that sentence in my post above.
Which just made me realize, that's what will kill the idea about rescinding the gag order. The juror who wants to talk is too likely to talk about other jurors, and no judge would want to write up guidelines for something like that.
Everyone's going to ask this juror what the vote tally was and how it broke down racially.
Well as I've mentioned STL in one of the most racially polarized metropolitan areas in the country. So I would not be surprised at all if the vote went 9-3 down the color line. But I could also see a scenario where some of the white jurors voted to indict but not enough of them.
Wow. Apparently these cops couldn't use a little discretion for the brother.
Around 2 p.m. last Friday, Samuel Lee Bassett arrived at his Chicago home to find the place on fire. Police and firefighters were already outside battling the blaze, which had grown intense. Bassett was reportedly told to get back, but the 48-year-old wanted to save his dog. In an attempt to get into his home, Bassett began pushing and fighting with officers, according to police records viewed by NBC Chicago.
The fire would send three firefighters to the hospital, Bassett's dog died in the blaze and Bassett was arrested and charged "with two felony counts of aggravated battery to a peace officer and two misdemeanor counts of resisting a peace officer."
"They kept trying to keep him out of the building 'cause it was unsafe for him to go in," Deputy Fire Commissioner Mark Nielsen told the Chicago Tribune. "He wanted to go in."
Bassett, an Air Force veteran who works as a lighting designer, was held on $300,000 bond and was told by the bond judge, "You should have more respect for police officers," according to the Tribune.
A spokesman for the Fire Department told the Tribune that foul play is not suspected as the cause of the blaze. Bassett, who has no criminal record, is due back in court this Friday, according to the Tribune.
BTW, I'd love for our commenters who were so concerned about black society to weigh in on the behavior of the police in NYC with all the back turning, slander, and defacto paid strike.
We can't do that, blame the people who cried their eyes out over previous "thread derailments". Maybe someone could start a new thread about it?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The scope of this thread extends in one direction, as far as some are willing to go, while pointedly ignoring other influential aspects that are equally impactful and important (how you can talk about discrimination against blacks without "dragging blacks into it" is a neat trick). It appears that a lot of people around here simply don't care for the parameters that are, at times forcibly, set and simply choose not to be part of the conversation. That does not in any way, however, stop you fellas from talking amongst yourselves about evil, malicious cops, while the Resident Thread Topic Expert copies and pastes to his heart's content from every deeply slanted, racially biased web tabloid he can find (there's some deep irony there, if anyone cares to give that any thought).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The scope of this thread extends in one direction, as far as some are willing to go, while pointedly ignoring other influential aspects that are equally impactful and important (how you can talk about discrimination against blacks without "dragging blacks into it" is a neat trick).
Even with that point of view, the misconduct or excessive force aspect is still quite an open avenue of discussion. Unless you, of course, you'd like to blame blacks if excessive force starts leaking out onto whites.
I entertained and even answered quite a bit of the dialogue about blacks, but I'd like to hear it claimed with a straight face that the amount of dialogue about the black community was in proportion to the responsibility they bear for the actions taken by individual police officers.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It appears that a lot of people around here simply don't care for the parameters that are, at times forcibly, set and simply choose not to be part of the conversation.
And yet, when provided with a separate arena to continue said discussion, the thread sees very little action. Simply put, no one seems to care now that the discussion has been divorced from being used to absolve officers from their behavior. In my opinion, because that was why that concern was brought up in the first place.
I have to give snow-i credit because while he engaged in the discussion about the black community, he also took time to post his opinion on the other incidents both directly addressing police behavior and without referencing race in any manner. And he's somehow managed to participate since the conversation was so 'constrained' by moderation. What a swell guy.
Even with that point of view, the misconduct or excessive force aspect is still quite an open avenue of discussion. Unless you, of course, you'd like to blame blacks if excessive force starts leaking out onto whites.
I entertained and even answered quite a bit of the dialogue about blacks, but I'd like to hear it claimed with a straight face that the amount of dialogue about the black community was in proportion to the responsibility they bear for the actions taken by individual police officers.
And yet, when provided with a separate arena to continue said discussion, the thread sees very little action. Simply put, no one seems to care now that the discussion has been divorced from being used to absolve officers from their behavior. In my opinion, because that was why that concern was brought up in the first place.
I have to give snow-i credit because while he engaged in the discussion about the black community, he also took time to post his opinion on the other incidents both directly addressing police behavior and without referencing race in any manner. And he's somehow managed to participate since the conversation was so 'constrained' by moderation. What a swell guy.
This does not fit within the thread parameters.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
And yet, when provided with a separate arena to continue said discussion, the thread sees very little action. Simply put, no one seems to care now that the discussion has been divorced from being used to absolve officers from their behavior. In my opinion, because that was why that concern was brought up in the first place.
So we have a cop in Billings, Montana who has managed to kill two non-violent, unarmed men in two years ...
Routine traffic stop. The guy makes no sudden movements as you can see. Was not violent in the slightest. He had trouble keeping his hands up. Likely as a result of the fact that he was high on meth. The key exchange:
Ofc. Morrison: Hands up! All four of you hands up! What were you doing? Why are you moving your hands around so much? You're making me nervous man. Who are you?
Richard Ramirez: Richard Ramirez.
Ofc. Morrison: Richard. All of you put your f*cking hands up right now on top of the seats.
Morrison then calls dispatch and gives the name "Richard Ramirez".
Ofc. Morrison: Hands up! Hands on the f*cking ... get you f*cking hands up or I'm going to shoot you! I will shoot you!
Ramirez hasn't moved. Wilson steps back and draws his weapon.
Ofc. Morrison: Hands up!
Morrison then fires 3 shots. Some may have hit Ramirez in the back. Morrison continues to yell "Hands up!" as if Ramirez is really going to be able to comply after being shot 3 times. Naturally, Morrison was cleared by a jury as part of the coroner's inquest.
Another traffic stop. Morrison said something about he knew the registered owner and was running the plates because several days earlier the guy had a warrant. The key exchange ....
Ofc. Morrison: Face away from me. Get on the ground! Get on the ground now!!! I'm going to f*cking shoot you if you don't get on the ground!
More yelling from several officers to get on the ground.
James Shaw: I didn't do sh*t!
Then you hear the taser followed by a single gun shot a second or two later. Shaw was also high on meth. Another officer said he had a "crazed look in his eyes". Testified that Morrison said "I know you have a gun! I will shoot you!" when on the dash cam you actually hear "I'm going to f*cking shoot you if you don't get on the ground!" Naturally, Morrison was cleared by a jury in this case as well.
Two non-violent, unarmed men killed in 2 years? Why? For failure to comply and nothing else. Where was the "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" other than in the mind of Morrison?
What I personally find striking is the similarity of Morrison's behavior to what Dorian Johnson said about Darren Wilson ....
Originally Posted by Dorian Johnson
The officer started choking him and tried pulling him into police vehicle, his weapon was drawn and he said I will shoot you, I’m going to shoot, when the first shot went off.
Just in case anyone was under the impression that a cop saying something like that was "outlandish" or something.
I have a feeling there's been more than enough reporting going on today already.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yes, that's what's stopping you. Concern for the mods.
Get the bee out of your bum.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Bernalillo County District Attorney Kari Brandenburg filed paperwork on Monday charging two Albuquerque police officers each with an open count of murder in the fatal shooting of a homeless camper in Albuquerque’s foothills last March.
Brandenburg’s office on Monday filed a criminal information that charges former Albuquerque police detective Keith Sandy and SWAT team member Dominique Perez with murder in the death of James Boyd, a 36-year-old homeless man who was shot in March 2014.
The charges are the first against an Albuquerque police officer in connection to a shooting. APD has been involved in more than 40 shootings since 2010, resulting in 27 deaths.
Brandenburg filed the charges via criminal information, allowing her to charge the officers without presenting evidence to a grand jury.
Sandy and Perez shot 38-year-old James Boyd, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, after a four-hour standoff in the Sandia foothills. Boyd, who was alleged to be illegally camping, was armed with two small knives.
I'd give the DA credit, but:
Although the shooting was not included in the Department of Justice’s investigation into APD, during the announcement of their findings, the DOJ cited the shooting, and Eden’s comments about it, as evidence of the systemic problems at APD.
...
Kennedy said the charges combined with the settlement agreement reached between the Department of Justice will improve the police department. The agreement was reached after the DOJ investigated Albuquerque police and found the department had a practice of using excessive force, which included police shootings.
I stand by my post above, but in all fairness this next video shows that Officer Morrison was either genuinely distraught after killing the unarmed Richard Ramirez or is one helluva actor. I suspect it's the former.
That being said, the guy has still killed two unarmed men in two years. So while I don't question his intentions ... I do question his judgement. Dude seems really jumpy. And it's not like he didn't have other options. For instance ... like NOT standing in the line of fire if you thought he was going for a gun. If he had simply stepped to the side with his weapon drawn another second or two would have revealed that the guy wasn't drawing a weapon.
The US Justice Department has just excoriated the Cleveland PD in the findings from its investigation of the department. Please recall the cop who killed 12 year old Tamir Rice 1.5 seconds after arriving on the scene works for this department.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department delivered a scathing review of the Cleveland Police Department's use-of-force policies and practices, and said sweeping reforms must be put in place.
Holder joined U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach and Mayor Frank Jackson to present the findings of a civil rights investigation based on an examination of nearly 600 use-of-force incidents from 2010 to 2013, plus thousands of related documents and hundreds of interviews.
The investigation by six Justice Department lawyers, plus several independent policing experts, found that systemic deficiencies and practices haunt the city's police department. The problems include insufficient accountability, inadequate training, ineffective policies, and inadequate engagement with the community.
The 58-page letter paints a woeful portrait of rogue officers pulling their guns and firing at suspects without justifiable cause, of beating defenseless suspects already in handcuffs, and of covering up their actions by failing to write accurate police reports -- if they write any reports at all.
"The reality is that there are problems," Holder said. "But I also think the people of Cleveland should have a sense of hope ... that these problems have been identified and that they can be rectified."
In the ensuing months, the Justice Department will work with city and police officials, as well as meet with citizens at community forums to help implement the policy reforms and eventually obtain a consent decree to be overseen by a court-appointed, independent monitor, Dettelbach said.
If changes aren't forthcoming, the Justice Department can sue the city to force reforms.
Among the findings:
- The Cleveland Police department engages in a pattern of using excessive force in violation of citizens' Constitutional rights.
- Officers were quick to pull their guns, often escalating situations, and fired their guns at people who did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
- There were incidents where officers punched and Tasered suspects already subdued or in handcuffs – sometimes as punishment. And they used Tasers too readily.
- The report also cited the city for failing to adequately investigate and discipline the officers involved in using excessive force. They said that investigators conducting reviews admitted that their goal was to paint the accused officers in the most positive light.
The Justice Department report arrived amid a combustible atmosphere in the city, just more than a week after a police officer shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in a West Side park as he waved a pellet gun. The shooting sparked public anger accompanied by peaceful protests, in contrast to the riots that followed the fatal police shooting of an unarmed teen, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri in August.
The shooting death of Tamir Rice illuminated the need for police reforms, and brought the use-of-force problems "to a more prominent light in the country," said Venita Gupta, acting Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division.
"The reality is that Cleveland is not alone in its need to address police reform," Gupta said in a telephone interview earlier today. "These investigations are keystones of Attorney General Holder's legacy, and I think it's very significant that he is coming to Cleveland with a backdrop of these national issues to talk about community policing and constructive reforms," Gupta said.
Gupta noted that under Holder there has been a re-invigoration of civil rights and police reforms, with 20 investigations and nine consent decrees.
The Justice Department's civil rights investigation in Cleveland was launched in March 2013 at the request of Jackson, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge and other community and religious leaders five months after the November 2012 police chase that ended with two unarmed people killed in a hail of 137 bullets.
Officer Michael Brelo, who fired 49 rounds, is awaiting trial on voluntary manslaughter charges for the fatal shootings of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams. Five supervisors were charged with dereliction of duty for their roles in the chase that involved 62 police cruisers and 100 officers. More than 70 officers and supervisors were disciplined for their roles in the chase.
The Brelo case, however, was not included in the report's findings, Dettelbach said, and he declined to discuss the case because it is pending in criminal court.
"It could have never happened and we would have made the same findings and recommendations," Dettelbach said.
Nor does the report deal with the issue of racial profiling, "although that issue is a concern among many in the community," Dettelbach said. Tamir, Russell and Williams were all black, and most of the police shooters are white.
Mayor Jackson's comments were brief. He expressed a commitment by the city to make the necessary policy changes in the police department, and was optimistic that a partnership could be formed between the Department of Justice, the city and the community.
The Justice Department investigation is the second of Cleveland police in the last 10 years, during which time some of the same problems from 2004 resurfaced, while others have been exacerbated, Dettelbach said.
"The use of force by police should be guided by a respect for human life and human dignity, the need to protect public safety, and the duty to protect individuals from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment," the report said. "A significant amount of the force used by Cleveland police officers falls short of these standards."
Naturally, Morrison was cleared by a jury as part of the coroner's inquest.
Top