Deaths and Injuries in Police Custody

[Andrea]

Texas officer on restricted duty after videotaped arrests

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/23/texas-officer-restricted-duty-after-videotaped-arrests/95783018/

A white police officer in Texas was placed on restricted duty Thursday after a viral video surfaced on Facebook showing him wrestling a black woman after she called police to report that a man had allegedly assaulted her young son.

Forth Worth Police, who have not released the name of the officer, said they are conducting an internal investigation which also resulted in the arrest of the woman's two teenage daughters. The man the woman accused of assaulting her 7-year-old son was not arrested,

"We acknowledge that the initial appearance of the video may raise serious questions," the Forth Worth Police department statement said in a statement. "We ask that our investigators are given the time and opportunity to thoroughly examine the incident and to submit their findings."

In the video, the officer approaches Jacqueline Craig, who complained to the officer that a man had “grabbed and choked” her son for littering, according to the woman’s relatives. Relatives said that a neighbor grabbed the boy by the neck in an attempt to get him to pick up the trash.

During the conversation, the officer is heard asking Craig, "why don't you teach your son not to litter?" Craig says regardless of whether her son littered, the man did not have the right to “put his hands on him.” The officer says, “Why not?”

The officer engages Craig in a conversation that quickly escalates. He asks why she hadn’t taught her son not to litter. Craig says regardless of whether the boy littered, the man, who is white, did not have the right to “put his hands on him.” The officer says, “Why not?”

As the argument escalates, one of Craig’s daughters tries to push her mother away, but the officer forces Craig and the teen to the ground. He points a stun gun into Craig’s back and then at her daughter when she tries to approach.

Warning: Video contains graphic language

The attorney for the family, Lee Merritt said that the officer "physically, violently, and brutally escalated the situation” and added that the man who allegedly assaulted the 7-year-old should have been placed under arrest.

"She was questioned about why she did not teach her son not to litter,” Merritt says. He said he plans to “request the prosecutor pursue charges” against the man.

Thomas Glover, president of the Black Police Association of Greater Dallas, looked at the video and told News 8 he is disgusted and disappointed.

“The citizens ought to be outraged, the city council, the mayor, the city manager," Glover told News 8. "Anywhere it happens, it damages the strides we’ve made in bridging the gap, either real or perceived, that persists between the black community and police departments. And this is a big stain."

The video, viewed more than 1.1 million times, was posted on Facebook by a woman identified by The Dallas Morning News as Craig’s niece.

The head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas said in a statement Thursday that she’s disappointed the officer is being given 48 hours to prepare a report on the incident.

“This incident and countless others like them demonstrate that for people of color, showing anything less than absolute deference to police officers — regardless of the circumstances — can have unjust and often tragic consequences,” executive director Terri Burke said. “This fundamental injustice is also a threat to public safety.

"If a Black woman in Fort Worth can’t call the cops after her son is allegedly choked by a neighbor without getting arrested, why would she ever call the cops again?”

[Andrea]

Cop uses Taser on man with Alzheimer's at nursing home 'because he wouldn't go to the doctor'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cop-uses-taser-man-alzheimers-9504960#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Harrowing police body cam footage shows the moment an elderly man was Tasered at a nursing home - 'because he refused to go to the doctor'.

The incident was originally captured in March, but has only just been released to the public.

Video footage shows a 91-year-old man - who suffered from Alzheimer's disease - scuffling with an undersheriff from the Ottawa County Sheriff's Office at a Minneapolis nursing home.

In the original report, it suggested that the elderly man had become violent after refusing to get in a car and attend a doctor's appointment.

The man repeatedly bats the hands of officers as they attempt to coax him out of the nursing home and into the vehicle.

In the clip, the man can be seen struggling with officers as they attempt to subdue him, but he breaks free and tries to run away.

One officer tells the man to relax, but he ignores them, prompting another policeman to shout Taser - before deploying the device.

The elderly man then screams in pain before falling to the floor.

The man's family, who do not want to be identified said he died two months after the incident. They believe the Taser incident weakened his heart and led to his passing.

They also claim that the handcuffs used on the 91-year-old broke his wrists.

At the time of the incident, the Minneapolis Police Department confirmed they were investigating.

The elderly man was taken into mental protective custody to keep him from hurting himself or anyone else at the nursing home.

KWCH News reached out to the Ottawa County sheriff after the body cam footage was released.

He said he believed the investigation had been concluded but was unable to speak on camera.

The nursing home has since introduced new policies and have trained staff to handle similar situations.

[*Anya*]

No, no, no!!!

I can't take it!

Taserig a 91-year old with Alzheimer's. What the living fuck?

Oh my god. Every time that I think that I can't read something worse, I do.

This one particularly kills me.

Doesn't anyone in authority know how to deal appropriately and kindly with a mentally ill or demented person anymore?

Shooting or tasering are the only two options??

I am beyond floored.

[Andrea]

George Will: When a house is seized and it enriches police

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/23/george-will-when-a-house-is-seized-and-it-enriches-police/

PHILADELPHIA — For Christos and Markela Sourovelis, for whom the worst thing was losing their home, “Room 101” was Courtroom 478 in City Hall. This “courtroom’s” name is Orwellian: There was neither judge nor jury in it. There the city government enriched itself — more than $64 million in a recent 11-year span — by disregarding due process requirements to seize and sell the property of people who have not been accused, never mind convicted, of a crime.

The Sourovelises’ son, who lived at home, was arrested for selling a small amount of drugs away from home. Soon there was a knock on their door by police who said, “We’re here to take your house” and “You’re going to be living on the street” and “We do this every day.” The Sourovelises’ doors were locked with screws and their utilities were cut off. They had paid off the mortgage on their $350,000 home, making it a tempting target for policing for profit.

Nationwide, proceeds from sales of seized property (homes, cars, etc.) go to the seizers. And under a federal program, state and local law enforcement can partner with federal authorities in forfeiture and reap up to 80 percent of the proceeds. This is called — more Orwellian newspeak — “equitable sharing.”

No crime had been committed in the Sourovelises’ house, but the title of the case against them was the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. 12011 Ferndale St. Somehow, a crime had been committed by the house. In civil forfeiture, it suffices that property is suspected of having been involved in a crime. Once seized, the property’s owners bear the burden of proving their property’s innocence. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” says the queen in “Alice in Wonderland.”

In Courtroom 478, the prosecutors usually assured people seeking to reclaim their property that they would not need lawyers. The prosecutors practiced semi-extortion, suggesting how people could regain limited control of their property: They could sell it and give half the proceeds to the city. The “hearings” in Courtroom 478 were often protracted over months, and missing even one hearing could result in instant forfeiture.

The Sourovelises were allowed to return to their house only after waiving their rights to statutory or constitutional defenses in a future forfeiture action. Such action was forestalled when their case came to the attention of the Institute for Justice, public interest litigators who never received the “You can’t fight city hall” memo. It disentangled the Sourovelises from the forfeiture machine, shut down Courtroom 478, and now is seeking a court ruling to tether this machine to constitutional standards.

There might somewhere be a second prominent American who endorses today’s civil forfeiture practices, but one such person is “very unhappy” with criticisms of it. At a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on forfeiture abuses, one senator said “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong,” and neither is law enforcement enriching itself from this.

In the manner of the man for whom he soon will work, this senator asserted an unverifiable number: “95 percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.” This senator said it should not be more difficult for “government to take money from a drug dealer than it is for a businessperson to defend themselves in a lawsuit.”

IJ’s Robert Everett Johnson notes that this senator missed a few salient points: In civil forfeiture there usually is no proper “judicial process.” There is no way of knowing how many forfeitures involve criminals because the government takes property without even charging anyone with a crime.

The government’s vast prosecutorial resources are one reason it properly bears the burden of proving criminal culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

A sued businessperson does not have assets taken until he or she has lost in a trial, whereas civil forfeiture takes property without a trial and the property owner must wage a protracted, complex and expensive fight to get it returned. The Senate Judiciary Committee might want to discuss all this when considering the nominee to be the next attorney general, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions.

[Andrea]

NYPD suspends officer who posted Snapchat of Brooklyn family in handcuffs

http://abc7ny.com/news/family-nypd-raids-wrong-home-posts-snapchat-of-them-in-cuffs/1670637/

BROWNSVILLE, Brooklyn (WABC) --
A family in Brooklyn is outraged after NYPD officers raided their home, put everyone in handcuffs and then posted a picture of them on social media with the caption "Merry Christmas Its NYPD." The ordeal led to the suspension of an officer.

The Brownsville residents were so upset that not only did they file a report, but they also called 911.

"The worst part was the Snapchats," Kimberly Santiago said. "That's what really got to me."

The photo appeared in the "New York story" feed on Snapchat, which a public collection of photos and videos posted by users in NYC.

Here's a look at the snap:



The photo is under investigation by Internal Affairs, which late Friday said the officer who took the photo has been suspended without pay. The department also said the officers were at the correct address, and had a warrant to go inside the apartment. But they would not disclose why home was being investigated.

"The things that he wrote, it's like, this what you all do?" Santiago said. "If he did that to, picture how many other families he's done that to. And he was the only one standing there watching us."

She said the warrant squad showed up at her apartment around 6:30 a.m. Thursday, and they placed everyone inside the unit in handcuffs during the search.

"Ya'll know that when you came to this house, looking for the wrong person that we don't even know," she said.

She said the officers left after about three hours, and not only did they have the wrong address, but a second picture appeared on Snapchat with the caption "Warrant sweeps Its still a party smh."

"We thought he was texting on his phone," she said. "Because the whole three hours we were sitting here, he was the one standing there. We saw him on his phone, but we didn't think an officer would do that."

The NYPD has declined to name the officer or the squad to which he is assigned.

[*Anya*]

California man fights DUI charge for driving under influence of caffeine

Attorney for Joseph Schawb, charged with driving under the influence of a drug when his blood test showed only caffeine, calls the charge unheard of

Julia Carrie Wong in San Francisco Saturday 24 December 2016 Last modified on Saturday 24 December 2016 04.02 EST

Caffeine may be the “nootropic” brain drug of choice in Silicon Valley, but an hour’s drive north in Solano County, California, the stimulant could get you charged with driving under the influence.

That is according to defense attorney Stacey Barrett, speaking on behalf of her client, Joseph Schwab.

After being pulled over on 5 August 2015, Schwab was charged by the Solano County district attorney with misdemeanor driving under the influence of a drug.

Almost 18 months later, Schwab is preparing to go to trial. The only evidence the DA has provided of his intoxication is a blood test showing the presence of caffeine.

Shcwab was driving home from work when he was pulled over by an agent from the California department of alcoholic beverage control, who was driving an unmarked vehicle. The agent said Schwab had cut her off and was driving erratically.

The 36-year-old union glazier was given a breathalyzer test which showed a 0.00% blood alcohol level, his attorney said. He was booked into county jail and had his blood drawn, but the resulting toxicology report came back negative for benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiates, THC, carisoprodol (a muscle relaxant), methamphetamine/MDMA, oxycodone, and zolpidem.

The sample was screened a second time by a laboratory in Pennsylvania, according to documents provided to the Guardian, where the sole positive result was for caffeine – a substance likely coursing through the veins of many drivers on the road at any given time.

“I’ve never seen this before,” said Barrett. “I’ve never even heard of it.”

Barrett has filed a motion for the case to be dismissed because the charges were not brought until June 2016 – nearly 10 months after incident. If that motion is denied, Schwab will take his case to a jury on 11 January.

Sharon Henry, chief deputy district attorney for Solano County, said in a statement that her office was “conducting further investigation in this matter”.

“The charge of driving under the influence is not based upon the presence of caffeine in his system,” she added.

Barrett counters that if the prosecution has evidence of a different drug in her client’s system, it should have to provided that to her, based on the rules governing criminal procedings.

“I have not been provided with any evidence to support a theory of prosecution for a substance other than caffeine at this time,” she said. “Nor I have received any statements, reports, etc documenting any ongoing investigation since the [toxicology report] dated 18 November 2015.”

Henry declined to comment further, citing the right to a fair trial.

“It’s really stupid,” said Jeffrey Zehnder, a forensic toxicologist who frequently testifies in court cases. Over 41 years, Zehnder said, he had never seen a prosecution for driving under the influence of caffeine.

“If that’s the case, then they better come and arrest me,” he joked.

Zehnder was informed about the case by Barrett, but has not been contracted to testify on either side.

California vehicle code defines a “drug” as any substance besides alcohol that could affect a person in a manner that would “impair, to an appreciable degree” his ability to drive normally.

Making that case with caffeine would be difficult, Zehnder said, because the prosecutor would have to show that impaired driving was specifically caused by the caffeine and not any other circumstances.

“There are no studies that demonstrate that driving is impaired by caffeine, and they don’t do the studies, because no one cares about caffeine,” he said.

As for Schwab, he just wants this ordeal to be over. In a statement provided to the Guardian by his attorney, he said his reputation had been damaged.

“No one believed me that I only had caffeine in my system until I showed them the lab results,” he said. “I want the charges to be dismissed and my name to be cleared.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-solano-county

[Andrea]

Video appears to show Fort Worth, Texas police shooting man as he walks away

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-collie-video-appears-to-show-fort-worth-texas-police-shooting-as-he-walks-away/

A police dashcam video appears to show a Texas officer shoot a black man as he’s walking away from the officer and not posing any immediate threat.

A lawyer for David Collie released a copy of the video showing the July encounter with a Fort Worth officer and a Tarrant County sheriff’s deputy. The officer and deputy were off-duty at the time and working a security detail together at an apartment complex, attorney Nate Washington said Wednesday.

He said Collie was shot in the back, leaving him paralyzed.

Police at the time were searching for two shirtless black men who they believed had committed a robbery near a gas station, Washington said. Authorities said in a news release they issued at the time that Collie pulled a box cutter from his pocket and pointed it at the officers.

Collie was charged with aggravated assault on a public servant but a grand jury declined to indict him.

Fort Worth police did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the incident.

Collie, 33, was walking from work to a friend’s apartment when the officers approached him in the patrol vehicle, Washington said. It was the Fort Worth officer who shot Collie, Washington said, and the video appears to show the officer firing his weapon about 10 seconds after exiting the vehicle and as Collie walked away.

The video was obtained about three weeks ago from the Tarrant County district attorney’s office through an open-records request, Washington said. The attorney said he released the video Tuesday at a news conference at Collie’s insistence because Collie was tired of comments made to his mother by people assuming he must have done something wrong.

Washington said Collie wanted to make clear he “didn’t do anything to threaten an officer.”

Release of the shooting video came just days after the Fort Worth police were in the spotlight over another incident. A cellphone video captured a white Fort Worth officer last week wrestling a black woman to the ground and then arresting her and her two daughters. The officer appeared to be argumentative and escalate the encounter with the woman, who had called police following an encounter between her son and a neighbor. The video has been viewed millions of times.