40
   

The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2016 04:10 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
If this is similar to the Rodney King happening as the heading on top of the video claimed we had a man who stole a car and then force the police to go on a high speed chase that endanger the life of every men women and child on the highways at the time.

Somehow I can not feel too sorry for such an asshole even if the police after being able to run him down used too must force on him.

Rodney King should not had gotten a get out of jail cards free either with a fat settlement even if all the cops should had been fired as only due to god being in a good mood that night was not innocent men women and children not killed due to the actions of King that night.

Not only that, but after the chase Rodney King then repeatedly assaulted the police officers, who only used their nightsticks in self defense.

The fact that those poor police officers got sent to prison for merely defending themselves is why these days it is acceptable for police to open fire with guns at the outset of a confrontation with a minority.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2016 04:20 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
He surrendered and the cops beat him. If there were more charges to be made then charge him. Cops are to arrest, not punish


Yes, as I had stated the police officers should be fired but once more I can not feel a bit sorry for a fool that gotten beaten after placing every damn man woman and child on the highway life at risk including the police officers.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2016 09:47 pm
@BillRM,


Where's the deserved part????
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2016 10:15 pm

‘Please Don’t Shoot Me,’ Unarmed Man Begs — Before Being Shot Dead by Arizona Police: Report

Distraught widow is now fighting to ensure that the officer responsible ends up behind bars.
By Eric Kleefield / Raw Story
March 30, 2016

A police report indicates that an unarmed young father of two begged for his life before being shot dead by a police officer in Mesa, Arizona. His distraught widow is now fighting to ensure that the officer responsible ends up behind bars.

According to KTAR radio in Phoenix, the newly-released police report indicates that Shaver told officers “please don’t shoot me,” shortly before he was indeed shot five times and killed.

Philip Brailsford, a former officer for in the Mesa Police Department, has been charged with second-degree murder, and he has pled not guilty. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said a plea deal is being considered, in place of going to trial.

On the night of Jan. 18, police were called to a hotel on reports of a suspect pointing a rifle out of the window. When police went to the room, they ordered Shaver and a woman to crawl out from the room. As Shaver was leaving, officers say he made a slight movement toward his waistline, at which point Brailsford shot him five times.

KTAR reports: “No weapons were recovered from Shaver’s body, but officers found two pellet rifles in the hotel room, which they later determined were related to his pest control job, police said.”

Shaver was 26 years old, and had wife and two daughters back home in Texas.

According to a Facebook post in January by Shaver’s widow, Laney Sweet, Shaver frequently traveled to Mesa as part of his job selling and servicing pest control equipment, which included the two pellet guns. She also said that he had been having dinner at the hotel with two people, “a man and a woman.”

“At some point, someone near the pool called the local police stating that they saw a man with a gun near the window of a 5th floor hotel room,” Sweet wrote. “Whether Daniel was the one holding it or he allowed the other man to view his equipment and look into the scope, we don’t know. The man left the room at some point, for what we think was a trip to the gas station.”

Sweet also wrote in that post that she had not been notified of her husband’s death, but had called every hospital and police station after she hadn’t heard back from him for two days — until she finally reached the coroner’s office.

This week, Sweet posted a new video on YouTube, opposing the plea deal has been offered to Brailsford, on the grounds that it would at most result in him serving three years and nine months in prison, and could potentially even result in probation.

She also plays back a recording of her conversation with the district attorney’s office, during which she felt silenced by the conditions that were being set if she were to be shown the video from Brailsford’s body cam. (Montgomery’s position was that it was necessary for Sweet to promise that she would not publicly describe the contents, or otherwise the defense team could potentially get an opportunity to say the case was being unfairly affected.)

Based, however, on the descriptions in this conversation itself made by Montgomery as well as by Sweet’s former attorney, who both saw the video, a person can get a decent idea of what is on it.

Brailsford was fired from the department on March 21, with records indicating another accusation of inappropriate force from months before the January incident.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2016 05:53 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Where's the deserved part????


When he broke into someone else car and then took it on a high speed chase with the cops!!!!!!!!!!!

By doing so Mr. King place every one lives at risk that night.

As I already stated the cops should had been fired for that beating but Mr King should not had gotten off with just the beating or received a civil settlement for that matter.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2016 06:51 am
@BillRM,
Show me the part in the law that says, "beat the life out of a complying suspect without due process".

The only way they didn't kill him was luck. Watch again as some cops stood up and swung for a home run off of his head with eight or so cops lining up for their turn.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2016 07:50 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Show me the parts of the law that is someone is illegal beaten by the cops after stealing a car and placing everyone on the highway lives at risk in a high speed chase he will not be charge with the crimes he had committed and will get a large civil settlement on top of it?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2016 07:39 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
As I already stated the cops should had been fired for that beating but Mr King should not had gotten off with just the beating or received a civil settlement for that matter.

Why should they have been fired? All they did was defend themselves when he violently attacked them.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2016 09:04 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Why should they have been fired? All they did was defend themselves when he violently attacked them.


That not my understanding of the matter but I could be wrong.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2016 03:24 pm

San Francisco Cops Just Can’t Stop Sending Each Other Racist and Homophobic Texts

A sign that the Department had more of a problem with racism and homophobia than previously thought.
By Robyn Pennacchia / The Frisky
April 2, 2016

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/san-francisco-cops-just-cant-stop-sending-each-other-racist-and-homophobic-texts

The San Francisco police force has a bit of a problem. The New York Times reports that even as fourteen police officers are currently being investigated for sending each other text messages that “disparaged gays, women, Mexicans and Filipinos, and proposed lynching blacks,” another group of seven officers is being investigated for sending each other texts that include “derogatory references to blacks, Asians, lesbians, gays and transgender people.”

These text messages were discovered as part of an investigation into the sexual assault of an officer, in which the officer’s cell phones were examined. Police Chief Gregor P. Suhr says that the Department has no tolerance for this kind of prejudice, and says that the officers involved have been disciplined, and two have left the department.

This fiasco, of course, puts the city in a bit of a pickle, as the SFPD is also under federal investigation due complaints that police officers were biased. The Department is accused of “using unnecessary deadly force and brutality, and of focusing enforcement efforts on black neighborhoods while ignoring similar infractions elsewhere.”

The city’s district attorney George Gascón, said that the text messages were a sign that the Department had more of a problem with racism and homophobia than previously thought, and said that these incidents would result in over 100 closed cases being examined for bias.

Also–god help me for thinking this–but this appears not only to be a sign that these officers were racist and homophobic, but also that they probably weren’t very good cops to begin with. You think they’d have some idea that “text messages” were maybe not the best medium to share such feelings. I mean, you’re a police officer, you’re doing something that could probably get you fired–why on earth would you put that in a text message, so that there is a record of it? Especially in the midst of another group of officers getting in trouble over doing just that? Are they stupid? Do they have a death wish?

Overall, the city is clearly better off without these officers, for many reasons.

Robyn Pennachia is a writer for The Frisky. Follow her on Twitter @robynelyse.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2016 04:42 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
I guess the fools was under the opinion that like the blacks that chat about cooking white officers in a blanket they was protected by the bill of rights.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2016 07:28 pm
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2016 08:59 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
No details of what was going on before the police officer use force to arrest her so what does it show or prove other then an officer will used needed force on a 12 years old girl that is resisting him?

Might be nice if we begin to teach both our young boys and young girls of whatever race not to resist a police officer and any disagreements with the officer should be address in front of a judge.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2016 06:18 pm

Judge: Probable cause to prosecute 911 caller in Beavercreek Walmart shooting
John Crawford, 22, shot, killed by Beavercreek police Aug. 5, 2014
UPDATED 11:40 PM EDT Apr 06, 2016

FAIRFIELD, Ohio —A judge has ruled that there is probable cause to prosecute the 911 caller in the John Crawford case.

Surveillance video of Walmart shooting

Warning: This video may be disturbing to some viewers.
More



BCI releases photos, documents regarding Walmart shooting
New video images released in Ohio Walmart shooting

Hundreds of pages of investigative documents and crime scene photos from the Beavercreek Walmart shooting were released by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
More

Audio of Beavercreek officers' statements after fatal...
More public documents released in shooting at Beavercreek Walmart

More public documents have been released by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations regarding the officer-involved shooting at the Beavercreek Walmart.
More

911 caller: Cop told Crawford to drop gun at Walmart
Fatal Beavercreek Walmart shooting spurs conversation over toy guns police training

A 911 caller who reported a man carrying a gun in an Ohio Wal-Mart told state investigators he heard an officer repeatedly say "put it down" just before police shot the man, killing him, according to a summary of the interview released by the state.
More

The 22-year-old Crawford from Fairfield was shot and killed by a Beavercreek police officer on Aug. 5, 2014, while holding a pellet gun inside the Beavercreek Walmart.

Watch this story

Police officers who were dispatched to the store, shot and killed Crawford.

A portion of the 911 call in question follows:

Caller: "My name is [Redacted]. He just pointed it at two children."

Dispatcher: "OK, I do have officers there. So stay on the line with me, OK?"

The caller reported Crawford was waving what appeared to be a rifle in the store. Police said he didn't obey commands to put down what turned out to be an air rifle taken from a shelf.

The judge noted that video surveillance from the moment described by the caller did not match what the caller described to dispatchers.

The 911 caller, who was interviewed by the Associated Press the day after the shooting, told investigators the gun looked like an assault rifle he personally owned, and he believed it was a real weapon because he didn't see an orange tip indicating it was an air rifle.

In the next-day interview, the caller told the Associated Press that the man actually didn't point the gun at people but swung it around and flashed the muzzle at children.

WLWT spoke with the attorney for Crawford, Michael Wright, who said, ultimately, “He should be held accountable for making this false alarm or making this call, but ultimately it was not him that pulled the trigger.”

“People call 911 for all types of circumstances, that's why you have this charge, making a false alarm,” Wright added. “Officers know and they're trained to understand that people are mistaken, some people lie when they call 911, so ultimately it’s their responsibility.”

The caller could be charged with calling in a false alarm, but it is unclear what might happen with the prosecution.

A judge recommended the case be turned over to a prosecutor.

If convicted, the 911 caller could spend up to six months in jail and pay a $1,000 fine.

A grand jury declined to indict the two officers involved in the case. More than 18 months later, the Department of Justice investigation is still ongoing.

“Ultimately, they have to show up, assess what’s happening and then determine the proper course of action. They can’t just show up and two seconds later someone is dead,” said Wright. “Had the police officers, when they showed up to the scene, had they assessed the situation they wouldn't have shot and killed John.”
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2016 10:50 am

Caught on Camera: Texas School Officer Body-Slams 12-Year-Old Girl to the Ground

Onlookers ask the girl is she is all right after she lands on her face.
By Cristiano Lima / AlterNet
April 7, 2016



A Texas charter school has reportedly placed one of its police officers on leave Tuesday after video surfaced of him body-slamming a 12-year-old female student to the ground.

According to Reuters, the confrontation, which took place on March 29, began when the officer attempted to break up an exchange between Janissa Valdez, the 12-year-old girl, and another student.

The video then shows the officer lift up and throw Valdez to ground before handcuffing her still body and carrying off the visibly shaken student. Onlookers can be heard asking the girl if she was “okay” and remarking that “she landed on her face.”

The San Antonio Independent School District placed the officer in question, Joshua Kehm, on paid administrative leave after officials learned of the video and incident at Rhodes Middle School, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

The mother of the child, Gloria Valdez, expressed her dismay at seeing the video to local news stations.

“You can actually hear it, her head hits the concrete, and that’s what hurt me the most,” Valdez said to local TV station KSAT.

Neither Kehm nor the San Antonio Independent School District responded to press inquiries on the incident late Wednesday.

Sadly this is not the first time a school officer manhandling an underage female student has happened, been recorded and made headlines.

South Carolina police officer Ben Fields made national news last October after video emerged of him flipping and dragging a black female student out of a classroom at Spring Valley High School, according to local outlets.

The incident resulted in the prompt firing of Fields, according to reports, after national outcry broke out.

Other Spring Valley High students, however, showed solidarity with the officer, staging a walkout in response to his termination.

Watch the recent San Antonio incident here:
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2016 06:47 am
Body cams capture girl's violent takedown by deputy

As Gabrielle Lemos is loaded into the back of the cruiser, you can see blood on her face.
CBS San Francisco



SONOMA, Calif. -- Video footage of the violent takedown of a teenage girl by a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy last year has been publicly released.

CBS San Francisco reports that the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office released video footage from the body-worn cameras documenting the arrest of Gabrielle Lemos on June 14, 2015, as well as subsequent recordings of her telephone calls from jail.

The sheriff's office released the video and audio recordings Thursday, only after they were introduced as an exhibit in Sonoma County Superior Court, making them public information.

According to the sheriff's office, Deputy Marcus Holton "was in a rural area of Sonoma County when he happened upon a parked pickup truck and trailer that was blocking the road. As he investigated, he heard a woman screaming from the house nearby. He saw a man walking quickly towards the pickup truck from the house with several women yelling at him. One of the women was crying. Based on what he saw and heard he suspected he had encountered a domestic related incident."

The body cam videos, which were posted Thursday evening to the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office YouTube Channel, shows Deputy Holton investigating why the truck is stopped with the motor running in the middle of a rural road in Petaluma, and why there is yelling.

In the videos, four women are arguing with Deputy Holton for several minutes and then another deputy arrives on scene. The verbal confrontation continues for several more minutes with the family demanding a female officer.

Holton then takes down Gabrielle as she is walking away, apparently ignoring his orders to stop.

Holton's body camera fell off during the confrontation.

As Gabrielle is loaded into the back of the cruiser, you can see blood on her face.

Gabrielle has since filed a civil rights case against the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. Shortly after doing so the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office filed charges against her.

Gabrielle's attorney, Izaak Schwaiger, wrote on Facebook Thursday: "Here is the video of a Sonoma County Sheriff's assault on an innocent girl. Share far and wide."

One of the jail phone call audio recordings is of Gabrielle speaking to her mother Michelle Lemos, describing what happened after she left her mother's house in the back of the cruiser.

The contents of the conversations on the video and in the audio recordings contains explicit language.

The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office released the following statement:

"Deputy Holton was well within his authority and Sheriff's Office policy to investigate this matter for a possible criminal violation. His conduct and that of the other Deputies involved has been reviewed by Sheriff's Office Administrators and we are confident they acted honorably and appropriately during this tense rapidly evolving situation."
© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2016 06:59 am
Family Calls VA Crisis Line for Son’s PTSD, Asked for No Cops – Police Show Up & Nearly Kill Him

Matt Agorist March 29, 2016 4 Comments

image: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/vet-nearly-killed-by-police.jpg
vet-nearly-killed-by-police

Gilbert, AZ — The family of Kyle Cardenas has filed a notice of claim with the Gilbert Police Department after they say, police beat him and tasered him until his heart stopped.

According to the claim, Cardenas’ family called the VA Crisis hotline on Sept. 12, 2015, and asked for medical help for their son. Cardenas was suffering from PTSD-induced delusions, so his family specifically asked for no police and a crisis team instead.

However, according to the claim, rather than getting the crisis team, who is trained to handle these situations, they got untrained cops from the Gilbert Police department.

Cardenas, clearly in a state of delusion, and in need of medical help, could not comply with the multiple officers screaming at him, so the officers escalated to violence after Cardenas resisted. The claim states that officers used excessive force because Cardenas was unable to comply.

The notice reads in part:

“The police charged into this bedroom as well and attempted to restrain Kyle again. During the melee, the officers Tased Kyle at least seven times, sprayed OC spray directly into Kyle’s face, struck Kyle multiple times with their batons, punched Kyle in the face with closed fists, kicked and kneed Kyle in the thighs and legs, and ordered one of the K-9 unit dogs to attack and bite Kyle.”

The multiple hits with the taser, clearly in violation of their use, stopped Cardenas’ heart, according to the claim.

“Fortunately for Kyle and his family, the emergency department personnel were able to revive him, but not before he suffered permanent and debilitating physical and emotional injuries,” the notice of claim said.

The Gilbert police have refused to comment on the case citing the ongoing administrative investigation.

This incident highlights two failures on behalf of government. The first failure is the inability of the VA to respond to a veteran who has PTSD without leaning on the police, their batons, tasers, and fists for help — completely the opposite of what the family asked for.

The second failure is on behalf of the Gilbert police officers who couldn’t resolve a situation involving a mentally unstable individual without resorting to violence and nearly killing him.

Sadly, veterans, especially those with PTSD are victims of the police far too often.

The Free Thought Project reported on the murder of Tommy Yancy, a father of two, who was savagely beaten to death by five law enforcement officers during a routine traffic stop on Mother’s Day. Yancy, a veteran who suffered from PTSD, served in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 259th Field Service Unit following the 9/11 attacks.

In January of last year, a video emerged of a 70-year-old veteran abused by police for walking with a cane.

In February 2015, an officer pleaded not guilty after gunning down Raymond Keith Martinez, 51, an unarmed homeless veteran who was loitering, but posed no threat to anyone. In another incident that month, another officer turned away as his partner beat an innocent and handcuffed veteran- so that the assault would not be captured on his body camera.

In March of last year, police gunned down a naked and mentally ill veteran in broad daylight.

In April 2015, a horrifying video was posted online of a police officer beating a veteran in front of her child, after she screamed out that she was pregnant. Her 9-month-pregnant stomach was left covered in bruises.

The list goes on and on. A search of the term “veteran” on our website should be enough for any person with a “support our troops” sticker on the back of their car to be outraged, so where are they?

It is truly tragic how many men and women survive wars abroad just to come home and be killed by the muscle for their own government.

image: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/magorist-e1456948757204.jpg
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Follow @MattAgorist

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/family-calls-va-crisis-line-sons-ptsd-asked-police-cops-show-severely-beat/#WzZ2UHCS1UebRyTE.99
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2016 02:34 pm
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2016 12:56 pm
5 Ex-Cops Plead Guilty in Bridge Shootings After Katrina
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2016 06:58 pm
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/new-york-undercover-officers-entrap-addicts-in-drug-stings-ignore-dealers-160419?news=858678

New York Undercover Officers Entrap Addicts in Drug Stings, Ignore Dealers
Back to News
inShare1 submit to reddit
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton (photo: Spencer Platt, Getty Images)

By Joseph Goldstein, New York Times

NEW YORK — The 55-year-old crack addict counted his change outside a Harlem liquor store. He had just over a dollar, leaving him 35 cents short of the cheapest mini-bottle.

The 21-year-old heroin addict sat in a McDonald’s on the Lower East Side, wondering when his grandmother would next wire him money. He was homeless, had 84 cents in his pocket and was living out of two canvas bags.

Each was approached by someone who asked the addict for help buying drugs. Using the stranger’s money, each addict went to see a nearby dealer, returned with drugs, handed them over and was promptly arrested on felony drug-dealing charges. The people who had asked for drugs were undercover narcotics officers with the New York Police Department.

A review of the trials in those cases and two others illuminates what appears to be a tactic for small-scale drug prosecutions: An undercover officer, supplying the cash for the deal, asks an addict to procure $20 or $40 worth of crack or heroin. When the addict — perhaps hoping for a chance to smoke or inject a pinch — does so, he is arrested.

In the case of the 21-year-old at the McDonald’s, the undercover officer was an unkempt woman who gave the impression she was about to experience withdrawal, the 21-year-old testified. In one of the other cases, an officer allowed an addict to use his cellphone to call a dealer.

It is impossible to determine how widespread this law enforcement tactic is, but the four recent cases reviewed by The New York Times raise troubling questions about the fairness and effectiveness of the way the Police Department uses undercover officers. Officers neither arrested nor pursued the dealers who sold the drugs to the addicts. Instead, the undercover officers waited around the corner or down the block for the addict to return with the drugs before other officers swooped in.

The department’s tactics and prosecutors’ pursuit of such cases have drawn criticism from defense lawyers and juries. In interviews — and, in one instance, in a letter to prosecutors — jurors have questioned why the police and prosecutors would so aggressively pursue troubled addicts. The 21-year-old man and the 55-year-old man were both acquitted of the felony charges.

The tactic would seem at odds with the public positions of some of the city’s top politicians and law enforcement figures, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, and the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who have expressed support for reducing prison and jail populations by finding ways to treat mental health problems and addiction.

“We all talk a lot in this city about the public health crisis of drug addiction, and yet we take a very regressive approach to locking people up,” said Tina Luongo, who heads the Legal Aid Society’s criminal practice.

Last year, nearly 5,000 people were charged in New York City with dealing small quantities of heroin or cocaine, and in 2014, just over 6,000 people faced such charges. But the number of buy-and-bust cases against addicts is unknown. A vast majority of drug-dealing charges end in plea deals, so there are few trials during which such distinctions might emerge.

The 55-year-old crack addict, Reginald J., agreed to speak to a reporter on the condition that only the first letter of his surname be used when identifying him. In an interview, he articulated one of the issues with these sting operations: It is tough for addicts to say no.

“For him to put the money in my hands, as an addict, let me tell you what happens,” he said. “I like to think I could resist it, but I’m way beyond that. My experience has shown me that 1,000 times out of 1,000 times, I will be defeated.”

At one trial in January, a defendant testified that he had shown an undercover officer track marks on his arm. At another trial, in December, the defendant testified that he had even told an undercover officer about his desire to get clean. “You know what? We got to stop getting high,” the man, Mitchell Coward, testified. “That’s what I told him.”

Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted three of the four cases reviewed by The Times, declined to say whether the office considered such sting operations to be appropriate. But she did say that in some cases, addicts who pleaded guilty to felony drug-dealing charges were steered toward treatment instead of prison.

Law enforcement officials said that undercover stings remained a necessary and sensible response to neighborhood complaints about drug dealing and narcotics use. For instance, the McDonald’s on the Lower East Side, where the undercover officer approached the 21-year-old heroin addict, was the topic of dozens of recent community complaints about drug dealing and drug use there or outside its doors, the police said.

“They are going to a location where there are prior incidents,” Brian McCarthy, an assistant chief who commands the narcotics division, said in an interview. “And at the same locations, where there are community complaints.”

He acknowledged that the line between users and dealers was not always fixed. “It is common that the people we arrest are also using the narcotics they are selling,” McCarthy said, but he added that his team was after the dealers. “I believe that we attempt to do our jobs in a planned manner with the utmost integrity where we do get people who are selling narcotics.”

Jurors and a judge expressed skepticism in the four cases. One juror, Seth Silverman, wrote a letter to prosecutors after the trial of Coward in December, saying he felt it was “approaching absurd that you would use the awesome power of your office to represent the people of New York County, along with it and the court’s limited resources, on such a marginal case.”

Since December, juries and judges in Manhattan have acquitted men of the main charge in three of the cases and deadlocked in the trial of a fourth. In each episode, an undercover investigator had approached men, largely at random, at locations where the police believed drug dealing was occurring.

The 21-year-old heroin addict at the McDonald’s, Brian L., also agreed to be interviewed on the condition that only the first letter of his surname be used. He described how an anxious, unkempt-looking woman approached the table where he and a friend were chatting. The woman, an undercover officer, would later testify that she approached the table at random.

Brian L. “was telling me how he was homeless and he didn’t have a place to stay, small talk,” the officer, identified only as No. 279, testified in January.

Brian L. said that the undercover officer told him she was staying with her grandmother in Brooklyn and was worried she would soon go into withdrawal.

“I said I would help her,” he testified. They walked from the McDonald’s, at Delancey and Essex Streets, toward East Sixth Street, where Brian L. said he often bought heroin. About a block away, he told the woman and his friend to wait, at the steps of an elementary school. The undercover officer handed him $20. He returned with two bags, which he gave the officer. Minutes later, he was arrested.

He had less than a dollar in change with him and no drugs, a police officer later testified. After the arrest, officers logged the dozens of possessions, including toothpaste, winter hats and stuffed animals that Brian L. carried in his two canvas bags.

His lawyer, Sam Roberts of the Legal Aid Society, asked Detective David Guevara, an investigator working on the case, whether any officers of the nine-member field team on the case followed Brian L. to see where he bought the drugs. The answer was no.

That was a common theme in the three other trials. In one, the addict, who owned no phone himself, had to use an undercover detective’s cellphone to call his drug dealer. But after the addict was arrested, the undercover officer testified he could not remember whether he ever followed up and called the drug dealer’s number, which was logged in his phone, to try to track the dealer down.

The jury took less than an hour to acquit Brian L. of felony charges of dealing narcotics near a school. Most jurors then remained behind to chat with him after the trial.

One juror said that what troubled the jury the most was that a nine-person narcotics squad — which included two undercover officers, several investigators and supporting officers — would bring a case against a single addict.

“The big underlying question is why a nine-person buy-and-bust team did not follow him to the dealer where he got it from,” the juror, Scott Link, said in an interview. “Everyone was scratching their heads, wondering what the heck is wrong with our system.”

Brian L. said that even his acquittal had come at a cost. He said he had lost his job at a consignment clothing shop because of the six days he needed to be in court during his trial.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 05:13:51