UPDATE: Defendant in Walter Scott Death To Be Retried After Mistrial Declared

Before you read this post, I have to offer a disclaimer so that you won't think I'm any crazier than you already do. Or perhaps so that you won't think I'm newly crazy... Anyway, several months ago I began having trouble with Blogger (again) and have been  unable to correct the issue. I'm tired of taking hours to get out a post (or days) and have it still not be correct. So, I'm just posting this the way it is; perhaps someone will be able to help me correct it. (I do know some HTML 5/CSS 3)  The issue is the font; if you notice, in some places it's sentence case while in others it's all uppercase. I didn't do that, when I wrote it everything was in sentence case. When I hit Preview though, it all changed....
************************************************************************************

Well hallelujah,  democracy lives! I won't say 'justice', because we haven't seen that yet, but I'm praying  for it! Especially in this case, where they have it on videotape that the man was running away from the police officer after a traffic stop and the officer pulled  his gun and shot the man in the back, then placed a Taser by his dead body. His claim was that he was in fear for his life because the man running from him might have turned around and charged the officer!!!

"Slager testified that even at 18 feet away, Scott still posed a threat to him and could have turned around and charged him."

So he didn't shoot because the man was turning around, fumbling at his waistband, yelling threats, none of the usual dumb excuses; he shot because he thought the man who was obviously so scared that he was running away might turn around (at 18 feet  away) and charge him. Meaning the man  might run back the 18  yards he'd gained and attack the officer. If he was scared enough to run in the first place, why does this guy think we're going to believe that he thought the runner might turn around and come back? Nah, don't wash with me officer, no way. You shot him because he was 18 feet away already and gaining ground with every step, and you couldn't let it be said that you lost him because he outran you, so you took him down. (Of course that's JMHO)

Here's the story for you to read yourselves.

Walter Scott Cop To Be Retried for Murder in 2017

Ex-officer Michael Slager will again face a state jury trial for shooting Scott in the back beginning on March 1.

BY: The Root Staff

POSTED: December 30, 2017

Michael Slager testifies at his trial for killing of Walter Scott

The former North Charleston, South Carolina police officer charged in the murder of motorist Walter Scott will be retried on March 1, 2017, reports CNN.

A state judge declared a mistrial in the case earlier this month, after jurors could not unanimously reach a decision to convict.

Although Slager was caught lying about the April 4, 2015, encounter, in which video captures him shooting Scott several times in the back and placing his Taser near Scott’s body, the jury failed to reach a guilty verdict after four days and more than 24 hours of deliberation.Of the 12 jurors, 11 black and one white, one juror, in a note, said he couldn’t vote for a conviction and wouldn’t change his mind, despite the fact that the judge on the case allowed the jury to consider a lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. Prosecutors charge that Scott, a father of four, ran after Slager stopped his car for a broken taillight because he feared going to jail for unpaid child support. They assert that Slager pursued and killed Scott even though his life was not in danger.

Slain father of four, Walter Scott

An emotional Slager testified that even at 18 feet away, Scott still posed a threat to him and could have turned around and charged him.

If convicted of either charge, Slager faces 30 years to life in prison.

Additionally, Slager is being tried in federal court on May 1, 2017, according to CBS News. In the federal case, Slager is charged with violating Scott’s rights under the color of law, lying to investigators and using a firearm in a violent crime. For those charges, he faces a term of life in prison. Read more at CNN and CBS News.

Felony Charge Dropped For Jury Foreman - What Is Wrong With This Headline?

Personally, i thought there was a rule or something about impaneling a jurist who has a pending criminal case? Wouldn’t that seem like a good reason for the defense to not want to impanel him? After all, he’s a youngish black man with a pending criminal case, he might take this case as a way to “get back at the system” for what’s being done to him? At the very least he might try to swing the jury around to seeing it from his point of view, that of the ‘downtrodden blacks’ ؟ 

FELONY CHARGE DROPPED FOR JURY FOREMAN AS HE SERVED ON MICHAEL SLAGER TRIAL

THE ONLY BLACK JUROR WHO ALSO SERVED AS FOREMAN DURING THE MICHAEL SLAGER TRIAL HAD A PENDING FELONY CHARGE AGAINST HIM THAT WAS SUDDENLY DROPPED BY PROSECUTORS DURING THE TRIAL. IRONICALLY, SLAGER’S TRIAL ENDED IN A MISTRIAL.

ACCORDING TO THE POST AND COURIER, DORSEY MONTGOMERY WAS INDICTED LAST YEAR ON BREACH OF TRUST WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT FOR OFFERING $5500 IN DISCOUNTS WHILE WORKING AT BEST BUY, BUT HE WAS STILL CHOSEN FOR THE JURY ANYWAY. IT APPEARS THAT MONTGOMERY’S CHARGES WERE DROPPED THREE WEEKS INTO THE TRIAL WHICH WAS ALSO THE DAY THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY. HAD MONTGOMERY BEEN FOUND GUILTY HE COULD HAVE SERVED UP TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.

IT’S UNCLEAR IF MONTGOMERY’S PAST WAS BROUGHT UP DURING JURY SELECTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE BARRED THE PUBLIC FROM ATTENDING THE EARLY PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL. SLAGER’S LAWYERS ADMIT THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF THE 35-YEAR-OLD’S CHARGES AND THAT HE DID NOT OPT TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE JURY PANEL, THE POST AND COURIER REPORTED.

“I’M A BIG BOY,” MONTGOMERY TOLD THE NEWSPAPER ON THURSDAY. “WHATEVER TRANSPIRED TRANSPIRED. WHAT HAPPENED HAPPENED. WHATEVER WAS DONE WAS DONE. “

MONTGOMERY HAS BEEN DOING THE MEDIA ROUNDS LATELY, RAISING A FEW EYEBROWS WITH STATEMENTS SUCH AS PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE WALTER SCOTT SHOOTING; THAT RACE DIDN’T SEEM TO BE THE DRIVING FACTOR FOR THE JURY’S DECISION; AND THAT HE BELIEVED THAT SLAGER, WHO SHOT SCOTT IN THE BACK AND PLANTED A TASER ON HIS DEAD BODY, “DIDN’T DO ANYTHING MALICIOUS.”

“Didn’t do anything malicious”???? Did i read that correctly? “planted a taser on his dead body”?? That wasn’t malicious, trying to make it look as if he was attacking the cop so the cop could kill him??? What was it then, if it wasn’t malicious??? Someone, anyone! Please tell me exactly what that is, if it’s not malicious???

This is the definition I found for ‘malicious’:

adjective

1. characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

"malicious destruction of property"

synonyms:

spiteful, malevolent, evil-intentioned, vindictive, vengeful, malign, mean, nasty, hurtful,mischievous, wounding, cruel, unkind; More

Dorsey Montgomery, please tell me that again, that what the cop did was not ‘malicious’; sure sounds like it to me!

If We're "Making America Great" Why Does This Happen?

The initial incident actually happened in mid-November 2016, on Veteran's Day. Chili's Restaurant gave a free meal to all veterans, who were required to show proof of service if it was requested. I think this is so sad... first that this man, this veteran,  fought to defend this country only to be treated like a common criminal when he went to  Chili's for a meal;  then, when he speaks out about the mistreatment he received there, he gets death threats and has to move. And what started the whole thing at Chili's? Allegedly it was a Trump supporter! Another portend of things to come for blacks, women, and any other  historically downtrodden minority.

Veteran Denied Chili’s Discount Moves Out of Home Because of Threats

ERNEST WALKER HAS MOVED HIS FAMILY OUT OF ERNEST WALKER SAYS THAT HIS ADDRESS WAS PUBLISHED AFTER BEING DENIED (WRONGLY) A CHILI'S DISCOUNT, AND HE NO LONGER FELT SAFE AT HIS HOME.

Ernest Walker

Ernest Walker has moved his family out of their Ovilla, Texas home because of racially charged threats he's reportedly received,  according to WFAA-TV.  This is reportedly not the first time the U.S. Army veteran was disrespected. He received an apology from Chili's restaurant after getting denied a free mail on Veteran's Day.

According to  WFAA, Walker says that ever since he decided to speak out about the treatment he received at Chili's, he and his family have been targets of anonymous threats. "We've received phone calls, and it's always a restricted line," Walker explained. People are saying , 'Hey, we know where you live.'"

The threats that Walker and his family have been receiving have reportedly been arriving through phone calls, mail, and online. After a Dallas media agency published his address, Walker and his wife decided to move out of their home.

"We had to protect ourselves," Walker said. "So we had to leave. We had to take our dog away from the house because there was threats  against our dog.

Walker and his supporters are set to host a free luncheon for vets next month.

"This country right now is wounded," said Walker. "There needs to be a healing process.  For the people that reached out to me from all different colors, races, creeds, and religions, that let me know there is hope for this country."

Well, Well, Well, And So It's Confirmed....

Or Should I Say " And So,  Once Again, It's Confirmed"?

From The Root: 

USA Today did a thorough investigation of fatal pursuits between 1999 and 2015 and  found that though African Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population they are 28 percent of those killed—including innocent bystanders.

Boston Police, April 19, 2013, in Watertown, Mass. Jared Wickerham/Getty ImagesPhoto by: Jared Wickerham/Getty Images

Innocent bystanders!! Not just black men who commit crimes and run from the police? Not just black men who try to take an officer's weapon?Not just black men who do not listen to an officer's orders? Wow, that's amazing!!  Yes, I'm being sarcastic, in answer to the many people I've come across whose first response to another killing is 'Well, they shouldn't have been committing crimes' or 'They shouldn't have been in the area' or something else equally as asinine.
Here's the article, which was originally published on April 19th, 2013:

In a first of its kind investigation, USA Today found that black people in the U.S. have been killed in police chases at a rate nearly three times higher than anyone else. The rub is that this included both those fleeing law enforcement and innocent bystanders. The outlet was able to thoroughly and meticulously illustrate yet another example of long-standing and deadly inequality in U.S. policing.

Pursuits are among the most dangerous police activities. They have killed more than 6,200 people since 1999. Black people make up 13 percent of the U.S. population but are 28 percent of those killed in pursuits whose race was known.

Among the findings (which strongly confirm a disparity and a likely bias in policing):

• Blacks have been killed at a disproportionate rate in pursuits every year since 1999. On average, 90 black people were killed each year in police chases, nearly double what would be expected based on their percentage of the population.
• Deadly pursuits of black drivers were twice as likely to start over minor offenses or non-violent crimes. In 2013 and 2014, nearly every deadly pursuit triggered by an illegally tinted window, a seat-belt violation or the smell of marijuana involved a black driver.
• Black people were more likely than whites to be chased in more crowded urban areas, during peak traffic hours and with passengers in their cars, all factors that can increase the danger to innocent bystanders. Chases of black motorists were about 70 percent more likely to wind up killing a bystander.

USA Today examined federal records for 5,300 fatal pursuits since 1999, when the government started tracking the races of people killed in car crashes. USA TODAY also took a deeper delve into 702 chases in 2013 and 2014, reviewing thousands of pages of police documents and hours of video of pursuits across the nation.

The racially lopsided death toll mirrors almost exactly the disparity in police shooting deaths. Yet police chases have remained largely unexplored even as the Justice Department moves to track more carefully other types of deadly interactions with the police.

The outlet shared its findings with nearly a dozen of the nation’s leading researchers on race and policing as well as police department officials who predictably claimed that race is not a factor.

“This is not giving someone a traffic ticket. This is people dying,” said Jack McDevitt, director of Northeastern University’s Institute on Race and Justice. “The cost of having small disparities is huge because you’re ending up with loss of life.”

Police officials, including those from the Michigan State Police, said a suspect’s race has no impact on officers’ decision to pursue. Instead, they suggested that any disparity was likely a byproduct of police spending more time in high-crime neighborhoods.

The news org even analyzed fatal pursuits in the daytime versus night, when police are not as clearly able to see someone’s skin color. It found that in daylight, 31 percent of the drivers involved in deadly police chases were black, but in darkness 21 percent of the drivers in deadly chases were black.

Whatever its causes, the disparity is clear:

For every 100,000 black people in the United States, 4 were killed in police chases over the 17 years between 1999 and 2015.

For every 100,000 people who are not black, 1.5 were killed.

Read more of this provocative and important report at USA Today.

A Note of Thanks To The Woman Who Recorded Jennifer Boyle at Michels.

Some Black Protesters Could Learn A Lot From This White Woman.

A lot has been said about this woman Jennifer Boyle, about her racism, her  insensitivity, her out of her head rants at both Michels and Peet's Coffee.  She's been splashed all over social media, and millions of people have spent so many incalculable minutes of their valuable time discussing her and her antics that there isn't really anything new to be said about her....
What I want to say is to the woman who recorded this video. THANK YOU. Our society has become so apathetic and uncaring that most people would have just shaken their heads and walked by. If anyone did record it, it would have been for the shock value, or for the notoriety they could get among their peers. Listening to the conversation when she approached you, no one would have ever known that you were just an ordinary shopper, out with your child doing some shopping. For the most part you did not take sides other than to tell her she needed help for her ranting and raving manner; even when she accused your child of stealing and you of having a "husband who's cheating on you" and of having "a pathetic life" you remained calm, and continued to record. You didn't get into a debate with her (as the manager spent about 8 minutes doing, to no avail) or get outwardly angry and start yelling at her, you very calmly continued to record her antics, even when she claimed to be recording your child (which I don't believe she did.)

A lot of people watching that video probably jumped up at that point and exclaimed loudly what they 'would have done' if it had been them; they would have  hit her, or told her off, or "slapped the  *^#@  phone out of her hand" (an actual quote from someone I know!) , and there are those who would have done exactly that. What good would it have done though? We saw what the manager accomplished.  (Nothing.) For every reasonable, logical thing the manager said, Boyle came back with more nonsense.  If someone (say you, the video recorder) had hit or, or cursed at her, or damaged her phone, at the very least you would have become embroiled in that woman's fantasy of discrimination at the hands of all non-Trump supporters,  at the very worst you would have been arrested and charged with assault, which there would have been video of, so you would have been found guilty and would have a record. Besides which, your child would have had to suffer watching mommy get taken away by the police.  Not cool....

It's my personal opinion of course, but I think you did exactly the right thing.  You stood up for what was right (by making a video of as much as you could) you didn't back down when she came over to you, and you didn't inflame the situation any further by overreacting to her. She spent a couple of minutes trying to goad you into doing something, then moved away to look for other 'prey'.  You and your child were still there, not in jail, not bruised, and still recording. I understood the shaking afterwards. Don't worry about it, being that close to that much hate and/or insanity can do that to you.

I think all the rioters and looters and violent protesters out here could learn a lot from you. If you give the enemy a reason to focus on you, your cause is lost and forgotten, i.e. if you had screamed or cursed at her, the fact that the video was about her behavior would have been lost. It would have become all about you and how you behaved. As it was, I got a very clear picture of her and what she was doing, and how uncalled for it was.  This is what's happened with BLM; everyone has become so riled up about some of the protesters' behavior that what they are protesting, the original basis for BLM, has been pushed aside.

For me, your video was about much more than the wild raving of some woman. It clearly showed the difference between Trump supporters and non-supporters, and validated some of what so many have said about the upcoming administration.

Thank you.




*The opinions expressed in this blog are those of its author only, and in no way represent Blogger, Google, or any other entity.

This Is What They Think Of Us! Don't Let Them Get Away With It!!

Trump of course is saying that he wants no part of an endorsement from the Klan, but doesn't he believe the same things they do about black people? Haven't we heard him saying derogatory things about blacks in the ghetto, etc.? 

Please,  to all my brothers and sisters, (no matter what color you are) don't let the Klan and Trump get away with this!  Show them that "40s and Weed" will not keep us from going to the polls and making sure that ego-maniacal, women-groping, foul-mouthed Republican does NOT become the leader of this country.

White Nationalists Plan to Suppress Black Voters With ‘40s and Weed’: Report

Amid Donald Trump’s cries that the presidential election is rigged, the KKK and neo-Nazi organizations are reportedly working to suppress the African-American vote.

STEPHEN A. CROCKETT JR.

November 2, 2016

Members of the Fraternal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 2009

On Tuesday, The Crusader, a newspaper affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, endorsed Trump, who allegedly found the endorsement “repulsive.” Now a neo-Nazi leader has told Politico that he and his associates are planning to hand out marijuana and 40-ounce malt liquor in the “ghettos” of Philadelphia to encourage black voters to stay home.

According to Politico, the National Socialist Movement, the Ku Klux Klan and the white nationalist American Freedom Party are monitoring polls amid Trump’s claims that the election is rigged.

“The possibility of violence on or around Election Day is very real,” Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center told Politico. “Donald Trump has been telling his supporters for weeks and weeks and weeks now that they are about to have the election stolen from them by evil forces on behalf of the elites.”

Potok added that intimidating efforts could actually work against Trump.

“If, on the morning of Election Day, it turns out that we have white supremacists standing around looking threatening at polling places, I think it would arouse anger,” he said. “People would vote just to prove they’re not being intimidated by these radical racists.”

But intimidation isn’t the only method Trump supporters plan to use. Apparently all black voters need not to vote is weed and 40s.

“We also have some teams going in to the ghettos in Philly with 40s and weed to give out to the local residents, which we think will lead to more of them staying home. We have had success with this in the past,” wrote an unnamed representative of the right-wing website TheRightStuff.biz.

Politico added that it could not independently verify the claim that this “method” of black-voter suppression has worked in the past.

Read more at Politico.

Not As Morbid or Tragic As Usual, but Very Serious Nonetheless

When I turned my computer on, and opened my homepage, the first thing I saw was this:

FBI agents knew of Clinton-related emails weeks before director was briefed

Agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server knew early this month that new messages had been uncovered that might be relevant to their case. FBI Director James B. Comey, seen here, has said he was told of the development Thursday. 

      With all that we have riding on this election, and the importance of getting  those we know to get out and vote for someone,  are we really concerned with some emails, and policies and procedures??? All of the space that's been used to  vilify Hilary in the newspapers and magazines, all the time  spent on her by TV news anchors and  camera crews, not to mention all the time her opponent, Donald Trump, spends talking about sending her to jail,  and all of it for what?  None of it has anything to do with the issues facing this country today, or explains how either one is planning to solve the problems! IMO, unless they find an email which states something about using the private mail server to hide something (i.e. "Dear So-and-So,  I have something to discuss with you, but first I want to assure you that you don't have to worry about speaking freely. I'm using a private email server,  not my government server." Then I'd say we have something to talk about, something to worry about!  Anybody seen anything like that, or heard anything close to that?And I'm NOT talking about the stuff coming out of the Trump camp or the Republican Party! The answer is a loud, resounding, No!!!

The above was written on Sunday; I wasn't able to finish because something came up.  Now today, (Tuesday) I see this article* on an ABC News website:

FBI agents Investigation Into Hilary Clinton Back On

FBI Director James Comey released a statement today* saying that the FBI is going to continue the previously closed investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state.

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote in a letter released today.

Comey wrote in the letter that after being briefed on the unrelated case, he agreed, "the FBI should take appropriated investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

Of course the news media is all over this, claiming that the FBI director must have evidence of a crime committed by the Clintons, and that's why they are reopening the investigation. What they have not made clear in these reports is that this is NOT the same investigation as before! As a matter of fact, it is not because of Hilary that the investigation was reopened! 
(* article is from October 29, 2016)

Here's a bit of an article from the New York Times:

Mr. Weiner, who lost his seat in Congress and his mayoral hopes after repeated episodes in which he sent lewd messages to women, is now under federal investigation for allegedly sending sexual messages to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. In that inquiry, the F.B.I. this month seized a laptop that contained thousands of messages belonging to Ms. Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton.

Huma Abedin

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress on Friday that investigators will now review those messages for possible relevance to the Clinton inquiry, news that rattled the Clinton campaign and stung her supporters.

Anthony Weiner

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

             You can read the entire article here.

Huma Abedin is one of Hilary Clinton's top aides, so close that she has been referred to as Clinton's  "Shadow".  Anthony Weiner's laptop and the investigation into his 'habit'  of sexting women is what has sparked this new topic of debate. As a matter of fact, His latest scandal to become public is his sexting  a 15 year old girl. During the investigation into that, it came out that there were hundreds of emails purportedly from Clinton's private server.

To me, this is nothing but another attempt to discredit Clinton and thwart her at the polls.  He has already said that she would not be charged, and the whole thing was squashed.  Even if this were a legitimate attempt to find wrongdoing, why was it so important to announce it now, before even completing the review of the emails? At this point they have no idea if there is anything in those emails that could possibly be incriminating to Clinton, so why the rush?

One thing I'm really curious about, why has the FBI  neglected to mention anything about Trump's alleged connections to an alleged Russian plot to usurp our election?

FBI agents  A Veteran Spy  Has Given the FBI Information Alleging 

a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump 

From an article in  Mother Jones::

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter    saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors{sic}, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information."

(You can read the entire article here.)

Why hasn't that been mentioned? Why hasn't the FBI Director made a big  announcement, or written a letter about that? 

This election has been the worst I have seen in the 39 years I've been of voting age.  It is the perfect example of  dirty campaigns run in dark backrooms by men in dark suits hunched over a table smoking cigars and glaring at each other as they gesticulate wildly. These campaigns have fit the stereotype that you always see on television and in movies, where someone is paid off to do something dirty and underhanded. It's  beginning to seem as if there is no reason to vote, not for these two candidates  at least.

There ARE OTHER CANDIDATES though! You don't have to settle for one of the big two, please get out  and vote for someone! Don't  let the Republicans  undo all the work that Obama has done! 

The Tragic Death of Deborah Danner, Age 66

Here's  a fatal shooting with a twist; no longer is it just young black males who've been stopped for something.
The officer who shot the victim is Sgt. Hugh Barry, an 8 year veteran of the NYPD. The victim is Deborah Danner, a mentally ill woman  that the police were already aware of from having had calls about her before. At the time of this article, the names were not being released, but have been since then.
Why didn't he just use his Taser on her? Initially she had a scissors, which in my mind would be a lot more dangerous than a bat, and he was able to talk her into putting it down. Then she picks up a bat and swings so he shoots her? What imminent danger was he in? Here we have a trained police officer up against a mentally ill but still able to be talked to 66 year old woman;  he couldn't  just grab the bat from her? Oh no, that's right, he had to hold on to his gun with one hand, after all, he was in fear for his life from this woman that he had just talked into putting down the scissors!

Police Cite Self-Defense as Sergeant Fatally Shoots Bronx Woman, 66

Deborah Danner

A police sergeant responding to a call about a 66-year-old woman acting irrationally in a Bronx apartment fatally shot her after she tried to hit him with a baseball bat on Tuesday, the police said.

Officers went to a seventh-floor apartment at 630 Pugsley Avenue in the Castle Hill neighborhood a little after 6 p.m. in response to a neighbor’s complaint, the police said.

About 10 minutes later, the sergeant entered the apartment and found the woman, who was alone, in a bedroom holding a pair of scissors, Assistant Chief Larry W. Nikunen, commanding officer of patrol for the Bronx, said at a news conference.

The sergeant persuaded the woman to drop the scissors, but she then grabbed a baseball bat. As she tried to hit him, the sergeant fired twice and struck her in the torso, Chief Nikunen said. She was pronounced dead at Jacobi Medical Center.

The chief said there had been “several incidents involving this individual with similar types of calls” in the past, but he did not have details of the previous calls.

The names of the sergeant, whom Chief Nikunen said was an eight-year veteran of the New York Police Department, and the woman were not released. The chief said the sergeant had a Taser, which was not used. Why it was not used will be part of an investigation.

In a statement, the Bronx borough president, Ruben Diaz Jr., called the shooting “an outrage,” noting that the police were aware of the woman’s history and that the sergeant had a stun gun. He called on Eric T. Schneiderman, the state attorney general, and Darcel D. Clark, the Bronx district attorney, to investigate.

“While I certainly understand the hard work that our police officers undertake to keep the streets of our city safe every single day, I also know what excessive force looks like,” Mr. Diaz said in the statement.

By CHRISTOPHER MELEOCT. 18, 2016

PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More

Now, Let's See What Happens to This Parent...

There  have been many cases of parents accidentally leaving a young child  in a hot car for several hours, only to return and find the child either unconscious or already dead.  In each case that I can recall, the parent who had been responsible for leaving the child was always arrested, jailed, and prosecuted. I wonder if it will be the same in this case...

3-Year-Old Daughter of Miss. Police Officer Dies After Being Left in Patrol Car

The Long Beach, Miss., Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to fire Police Officers Cassie Barker and Clark Ladner. Barker's daughter died after being left alone in a patrol car for four hours.

Long Beach, Miss., Police Officer Cassie Barker with her daughter Cheyenn                                                FACEBOOK

The Board of Aldermen of the city of Long Beach, Miss., voted unanimously Tuesday to fire two police officers involved in the hot-car death of the 3-year-old daughter of one of the officers, the Sun Herald reports.

Initially, the officers were placed on paid leave pending the outcome of an investigation into the death of 3-year-old Cheyenn Hyer, daughter of Police Officer Cassie Barker, the Sun Herald reports.

However, the board decided to terminate Barker as well as Police Sgt. Clark Ladner, per the recommendation of Police Chief Wayne McDowell.

Barker’s daughter Cheyenn died Friday after being left alone in a patrol car, according to the report. Hancock County Sheriff Ricky Adam said the patrol car was running with the air conditioner on when investigators got to the scene. Cheyenn (some news organizations are spelling her name as Cheyenne) was left unattended in the car for four hours while Barker “was visiting” Ladner, authorities said. Both officers were off-duty at the time Cheyenn was found.

Temperatures at the time of the incident were in the high 80s to low 90s, with the heat index reaching more than 100 degrees.

Adam said that an arrest could follow once investigators obtain additional information. Investigators are working to determine whether criminal charges will be filed in the case. Chief Deputy Don Bass said Ladner did not know that Cheyenn was in the car while he and Barker were inside.

Barker will have 10 days to file an appeal with the Civil Service Commission regarding her firing, the Sun Herald notes.

On Monday, Chief Investigator Glen Grannan revealed that deputies learned that Barker had also been involved in an unrelated incident that resulted in her having to go through the state Department of Human Services “so she could have her child back,” the Sun Herald reports. That incident also involved Cheyenn.

“I’ve spoken with the male officer involved, but I’ve not spoken with the female officer, not as far as the official internal investigation, because of medical reasons,” Long Beach Police Chief Wayne McDowell said. “The mother is in shock. I will talk to her soon.”

Read more at the Sun Herald. 

And Now The Truth Comes Out!!

New Video Reveals Sacramento, Calif., Police Tried To Run Over Black Man Before Fatally Shooting Him

The disturbing incident—even condemned by one of the officer’s brothers—was apparently even worse than initially thought, as departmental video shows that the officers tried to run Joseph Mann over twice.

According to recently released dash-cam video from a July altercation, two Sacramento, Calif., police officers attempted to run over an African-American homeless man—twice—before they shot and killed him in a hail of bullets.

The Sacremento Bee reports that one of the officers says “f–k this guy” in the final minute before they shot Joseph Mann. Moments later, the driver says, “I’m going to hit him.”

“OK. Go for it. Go for it,” his partner responds.

The Bee reports that Officers Randy Lozoya and John Tennis gunned their vehicle toward Mann during the July 11 incident, backed up, turned and then drove toward him again, based on dashcam video released by police. They stopped the car, ran toward Mann on foot and shot him 14 times. He was obviously running away from them.

After a private citizen gave news outlets video from the incident, police released dashcam video on Sept. 20 and called a news conference that day.

The Sacramento News and Review reports that the videos seem to contradict the department’s initial statement that its officers resorted to lethal force only after de-escalation tactics failed.

Lozoya and Tennis are currently on “modified duty,” according to a police spokesman.

Dispatchers told officers that Mann was seen with a knife and a gun. Police have never reported finding a gun.

In the dashcam video from the car used by Lozoya and Tennis, the officers attempt to hit Mann as he crosses a side street but miss him. The car screeches, reverses and then turns onto a street to continue the pursuit.

In the next audible clip, an officer says, “We’ll get him. We’ll get him.” They stop the car, exit and then chase Mann on foot.
Seconds later, they fired 18 shots at Mann, hitting him with 14. Their gunfire is heard on the dashcam video.

A toxicology report found methamphetamine in Mann’s system.

The Sacramento City Council will propose a use-of-force policy designed to restrict lethal force to be debated on Oct. 13. Other council members are calling for quicker release of video in police shootings, greater powers for a civilian oversight commission and other reforms.

“They are officers that shouldn’t be in uniform,” said Robert Mann, Joseph Mann’s brother, according to the Bee. “If this is their state of mind when they go to work, this doesn’t serve anyone well.”

Both officers are named as defendants in a federal lawsuit filed last month against the city by Mann’s relatives, according to the Sacramento News and Review. The lawsuit  says Mann displayed “overt signs of being in the midst of mental crisis” and officers should not have used lethal force—including a car—against him.

The Bee notes that the incident occurred four days after a sniper shot five police officers during a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Dallas.

     This one really surprises me, I don't recall ever hearing about it.  IMO, it ranks right up at the top of the list of  police-involved shooting deaths for being totally unnecessary.

     During the summer I wrote a post in which I highlighted the difference between what children used to be taught  about police officers and the new lessons they're learning now.  In that post I said that

" it's not a racial divide for the most part, although it can be seen as a color divide. The colors aren't the expected black vs white though, the colors are blue vs all the colors of the rainbow."

 This story shows that more clearly than just talking about it. (You can read the post here.)

Graphic Body-Cam Footage Shows La. Cops Fatally Shoot 6-Year-Old Autistic Boy

     A Louisiana court released footage from November that shows now-former Officers Derrick Stafford, 33, and Norris Greenhouse Jr., 24, open fire on Christopher Few’s SUV, apparently unaware that Few’s 6-year-old son was in the car.

     On Wednesday a Louisiana court released body-camera footage of the fatal shooting of a 6-year-old autistic boy.

     According to CNN, Jeremy Mardis was riding with his father, Christopher Few, in November 2015 when Marksville, La., police attempted to pull him over. The officers, Derrick Stafford, 33, and Norris Greenhouse Jr., 24, claimed that they were attempting to stop Few to serve a warrant, although no warrants were ever issued for Few.

       Few reportedly refused to stop, and the officers gave chase. Officers claimed that the shooting occurred after Few rammed their squad car and was attempting to ram it again. Body-cam footage of the incident appears to show that Few’s car was stopped and his hands were raised when officers began firing on his SUV.

     “I dare say it was not even close to being used as a deadly weapon at that time,” U.S. District Court Judge William Bennett said after releasing the video.

Norris Greenhouse Jr.; Derrick Stafford ex-Louisiana State Police

     Stafford and Greenhouse were both charged with murder last year.

     The video, which is graphic, is about 14 minutes long and includes about a minute of the shooting. The video shows the officers realizing that a kid was in the car. It shows the officers checking the boy’s lifeless body; the video also shows both officers grieving when they learned that a child was in the car. Few was critically wounded.

     CNN notes that some 14 shell casings were found on the scene, and the three bullet fragments found in Mardis’ body all came from Stafford’s gun.

     Prosecutors claim that the footage supports their point that both officers have a history of excessive violence. They note several times when both officers used a stun gun unnecessarily, and in one case Stafford reportedly broke a 16-year-old girl’s arm while breaking up a schoolyard fight, the New York Daily News reports.

     Megan Dixon, Few’s fiancee, told The Advocate last year that Few and Greenhouse had a run-in after the former officer reportedly messaged Dixon on Facebook and visited her home.

     Both officers are currently free on bond. Stafford will face trial in November, according to CNN, while Greenhouse will not go to trial until March 2017.

BY: STEPHEN A. CROCKETT JR. September 29, 2016