Reply
Wed 13 Jun, 2012 12:43 am
THE NEW YORK TIMES
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and WENDY RUDERMAN
Published: June 11, 2012
A police officer will be prosecuted on manslaughter charges
in the shooting death of Ramarley Graham, an 18-year-old
who was killed by a single police bullet in his bathroom
after a team of narcotics officers broke into his Bronx home,
three people briefed on the charges said Monday.
The officer, Richard Haste, a four-year veteran of the Police Department,
is expected to turn himself in on Wednesday for arraignment,
the people said. A grand jury recently voted to indict Officer Haste, 30,
on charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter, but the
indictment has not been unsealed, they said. It was unclear
if he would face additional charges.
This is the first time a New York City police officer has been indicted
on a charge stemming from an on-duty shooting since three detectives
were charged in March 2007 in the death of Sean Bell, a 23-year-old
who was leaving a strip club hours before he was to be wed.
The detectives were later acquitted. (Another officer, Rafael Lora,
was indicted in December 2007 for an off-duty shooting that killed
the driver of a minivan.)
Mr. Graham was unarmed when he was shot.
The Feb. 2 shooting occurred shortly after two other police officers
radioed colleagues and said they believed Mr. Graham was carrying a gun
in his waistband as he walked toward his home in the Wakefield
section of the Bronx. Based on that observation, Officer Haste
rushed to the scene and broke into the apartment where Mr. Graham lived.
He confronted the young man in the bathroom and fired a single,
fatal shot, the police have said.
No gun was found on Mr. Graham.
There was a bag of marijuana in the toilet, suggesting that he may
have been trying to dispose of drugs. Mr. Graham’s grandmother
and his 6-year-old brother were in the apartment at the time
of the shooting.
The officer’s father, also named Richard Haste, said in a phone interview
that his son fired his gun because he “thought his life was in jeopardy.”
“I can tell you without any hesitation, from deep in my heart, that
my son did not intend to, or want to, shoot this kid,” Mr. Haste, 52, said.
“When he told the kid to show him his hands, he didn’t show him his hands,”
he added, relating an account of the shooting that he said he had gotten
from his son. “He reached for his belt. Unfortunately my son thought
his life was in jeopardy, and he opened fire, and unfortunately
this kid got killed.”
The Graham shooting has focused attention on the aggressive tactics
of the Police Department’s Street Narcotics Enforcement Units —
teams of six or seven officers who hide on rooftops or in parked cars
as they scan the streetscape for drug transactions before swooping
in to arrest dealers and customers.
In the 1990s, these units helped reduce sidewalk drug dealing, as
many drug dealers were pushed back indoors. In recent years, the
teams have focused more of their efforts on marijuana sales,
as sidewalk transactions of crack and heroin have become less common.
On the day of the shooting, a pair of officers from Officer Haste’s
street narcotics team had staked out the sidewalk in front of a
bodega on White Plains Road, when Mr. Graham and two friends
caught their attention. The observation team began trailing the
three men, leading up to the fatal encounter.
Following the shooting, the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly,
ordered a citywide review of the narcotics units, although he has not
made public the full conclusions of that review.
A spokesman for the Bronx district attorney’s office declined to comment.
Officer Haste’s lawyer, Stuart London, did not return a call for comment.
A lawyer for the Graham family, Jeffrey Emdin, also declined to comment.
Officer Haste’s father said that skin color — his son is white,
Mr. Graham was black — played no part in the episode.
“There is no way my son is a racist,” he said, adding that his wife,
Officer Haste’s stepmother, is “half black, half Puerto Rican.”
On Friday, Mr. Graham’s family and other supporters held a rally
next to City Hall, calling for Officer Haste’s prosecution. Protesters
described the shooting as an “execution.” A banner showed an
image of Mr. Graham with the text: “I am Ramarley. You seen my hands.
No gun. Why did you shoot?”
“My son didn’t have to get killed,” Mr. Graham’s mother, Constance Malcolm,
said at the rally. “It’s hard for me to even talk about. It didn’t have to happen.”
Last month, the grand jury heard evidence from Officer Haste and at least
three other officers who were involved in the episode. It was also
expected to hear testimony from Mr. Graham’s family.
In a statement, the president of the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association,
Patrick J. Lynch, stood by the officers’ original belief that Mr. Graham had a gun.
“We look forward to a complete review of the facts in this case,
which will demonstrate that this police officer believed that he was
pursuing an armed felon who bolted rather than be caught with an illegal gun,”
Mr. Lynch said. “Several members of the officer’s team had confirmed
the presence of a gun, and that constituted a grave danger to the officers
and the community. We believe that this officer will be exonerated at trial.”
Russ Buettner and William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.
[All emfasis has been added by David.]
It is pervasively implicit
thru out this NY Times article that killing Graham was OK,
IF he had a gun, yet in the cases of D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290 (2008)
and McDONALD v. CHICAGO 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)
the US Supreme Court has recognized the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTs of citizens
to keep and bear arms in their homes; i.e., he was killed because
he was believed to have been exercising his Constitutional Rights.
(Note that the police, the D.A. and the judge r all sworn to support the Constitution. HYPOCRITS??)
Gun control is very politically correct.
It will be interesting to see whether the D.A. will raise this right
in his argument, while prosecuting this homicide, or ignore it,
as if the USSC had remained silent about it.
Let 's see if Jesse Jackson n Sharpton bring that up.
I 'm pretty sure thay will not, because it is not P.C.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:It is pervasively implicit
thru out this NY Times article that killing Graham was OK,
IF he had a gun,
No, it says nowehere that it would have been OK to kill Graham because Graham had a gun. It does imply, however, that if Graham did have a gun, the officer would probably have been justified in fearing for his life and in taking whatever actions were deemed necessary to neutralize that threat, up to and including lethal force.
Quote:he was killed because
he was believed to have been exercising his Constitutional Rights
Wrong again. Graham's constitutional rights had no bearing on the fcat that the police officer feared for his life. You have a right to keep sharp kitchen knives in your kitchen; it doesn't even require a Constitutional amendment to enable you to do that. But if you pick up one of those knives and rush at me while holding it, I believe I have every right to fear for my lfe and plug you deader'n a plugged nickel.
This is a sticky kind of wicket. To my way of thinking, there is no question of 2nd Amendment rights here. Inasmuch as the only firearm involved was the one carried by the police officer, there is no question of the right to bear arms. The only way that question would arise would be if Graham had, in fact, been exercising what you consider to be his Constutional right and carrying a gun. But then, of course, there'd be no story because the police officer would not be in any trouble.
@Lustig Andrei,
Please note that there have been
NO ALLEGATIONS
that decedent Graham pointed a gun (or any weapon) at police.
The whole point here
is that he was slaughtered
BECAUSE he
was believed to have been
exercising his
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to keep and bear arms in his home,
WITHOUT pointing it at anyone.
The
ONLY thing that he was
ALLEGED to have done
was to have exercised his Constitutional Rights to
CARRY a gun
WITHOUT pointing it at anyone.
WILL FEDERAL CHARGES
BE FORTHCOMING AGAINST OFFICER HASTE?
UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I
CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
§§ 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, . . .
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution [the 2nd Amendment]
or laws of the United States, . . .
shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[All emphasis has been added by David.]
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:WILL FEDERAL CHARGES
BE FORTHCOMING AGAINST OFFICER HASTE?
I doubt it very much. He may face some difficulties at the state or local level but it would have no bearing on questions of constitutionality (except, perhaps, as it pertains to invasion of privacy. Did Haste have a warrant to enter the home? Or suffiently strong presumption of criminal conduct?)
@Lustig Andrei,
OmSigDAVID wrote:WILL FEDERAL CHARGES
BE FORTHCOMING AGAINST OFFICER HASTE?
Lustig Andrei wrote:I doubt it very much.
I wish to join in your skepticism
that obama will enforce the 2nd Amendment.
Lustig Andrei wrote:He may face some difficulties at the state or local level
but it would have no bearing on questions of constitutionality
(except, perhaps, as it pertains to invasion of privacy.
Did Haste have a warrant to enter the home?
I believe that he did not.
Lustig Andrei wrote:Or suffiently strong presumption of criminal conduct?)
Well, he was accused by police
of exercising his Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms in the home.
THAT was the criminal conduct.
Do u see the point that I have raised ?
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:I wish to join in your skepticism
that obama will enforce the 2nd Amendment.
David, as a lawyer are you so uninformed that you think the President makes decisions about what federal charges to bring?
I think you need to see a Dr, David. Your ability to think clearly is obviously impaired.
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:Do u see the point that I have raised ?
Of course. But I deem it to have no merit. There is no evidence that anyone was attempting to abrogate anyone's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In most jurisdictions such rights are regulated for the protection of the populace (including the bearer of arms); the law enforcement officer was merely ascertaining whether a municipal statute was or was not being volated. That a misunderstanding ensued is unfortunate; however, it has no bearing on the constitutionality of anythng here.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace