this weeks law enforcement farces of injustice

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ot-then-lied-about-it/?utm_term=.d1edc9440dfe

In my series on policing in South Carolina last year, I noted the story of Julian Betton, a Myrtle Beach man who was raided by a multi-jurisdictional drug task force after allegedly making two $50 pot sales to a friend who, unbeknownst to him, also happened to be a police informant. There were some new developments in the case this week. But first, some background:

After forcing Betton’s door down with a battering ram, members of the 15th Circuit Drug Enforcement Unit fired at least 57 bullets at the then-31-year-old Betton, hitting him nine times. A summary of Betton’s injuries:

He ended up losing his gallbladder and parts of his bowel, colon and rectum. The bullets also damaged his liver, small intestine and pancreas. His lung partially collapsed. His left leg was broken. One of his vertebrae was partially destroyed; two others were fractured. He’ll never walk again or be able to have kids of his own. He’ll also need to use a colostomy bag for the rest of his life.

The police claimed that they knocked and announced themselves several times before entering Betton’s home. Only after those knocks and announcements did they force down his door. At that point, they said, Betton fired a handgun at them, giving them no choice but to empty their guns into him.

That story was always suspicious. Betton was at worst a small-time pot dealer. It just wouldn’t make much sense for him to knowingly fire a handgun at a raid team of a dozen cops. Even if he were the sort willing to kill a law enforcement officer over some pot, he was massively out-armed and out-manned.

And as it turns out, Betton didn’t fire on them. Ballistics tests later showed that his gun had never been fired. The cops then altered their story to say that Betton merely pointed his gun at them.

That still didn’t make much sense. The police claimed he did this after they made repeated knocks and announcements, and that they were wearing uniforms clearly indicating that they were law enforcement. This again would have had Betton knowingly taking on a well-armed, well-equipped tactical team with a handgun over a comparatively small amount of pot — but this time only pointing the gun at them. Also suspicious: The task force members gave strikingly similar, almost word-for-word accounts of the raid. The police also confronted one of Betton’s neighbor’s as they approached the house. That neighbor would later say he had no idea the raid team was law enforcement, and he thought he was being robbed. If the neighbor didn’t know the raid team were police officers, it’s hard to see how Betton should have.

And as it turns out, much of the rest of the raid team’s story was false, too. The officers were apparently unaware of the fact that Betton had a security camera. Footage of the first moments of the raid shows that the first officers into the house had no insignia on their clothes indicating they were law enforcement. The first officers are wearing dark tops with light slacks. One is wearing a backward baseball cap, another a balaclava hood. Moreover, the video clearly shows that no officer knocked on Betton’s door before the battering ram smashed it open. The video has no sound, so it’s difficult to say if the police announced themselves. But they did not have a no-knock warrant, which means they were obligated to knock, announce themselves and wait a sufficient period of time before entering. The courts haven’t said exactly how long police are required to wait, but it’s generally thought to be at least 10 seconds. The cops who raided Betton didn’t knock. And if they announced, it was within just a few seconds of smashing down his door, and then shooting him.

In short, even if Betton did point a gun at the raiding officers, given that they didn’t properly announced themselves, he would have been legally permitted to do so. But given that the police lied about him firing the gun, their uniforms, and knocking and announcing, it’s difficult to put much faith in their claims that he pointed the gun at them.

Curiously, several members of the raid team were wearing body cameras. Oddly, all of the officers who had body cameras activated them at the same time — not before the raid began, but after Betton had been shot.

This week, Betton pleaded guilty to one count of marijuana distribution and another charge of possession with intent to distribute. All of the gun charges against him were dropped. That seems significant. Generally, prosecutors don’t tread lightly on people accused of assaulting or pointing guns at police officers. For the marijuana charges, Betton was sentenced to five years in prison for each count, which the judge suspended.

All of the officers involved in the raid on Julian Betton were later cleared by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), the state police agency that investigates shootings and allegations of misconduct by police officers. My series last year looked at a number of cases in which SLED investigations of officer-involved shootings were at best sloppy, and at worst reeked of cops covering for other cops. The SLED report of the Betton raid made only cursory mention of Betton’s surveillance footage. It doesn’t mention that the footage pretty clearly contradicts the officers’ account of what happened. The officers were never punished for their false claims about Betton firing his gun, the false claims about their uniforms, or their failure to knock and announce before battering down Betton’s door, which was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Betton’s lawsuit against the task force is still pending. Recently, the prominent Raleigh attorney Bradley Bannon joined Betton’s legal team after reading about his story here at The Watch. But even if he should win, the officers will likely be indemnified by the cities and counties that employ them.

Julian Betton’s offense was to sell $100 worth of pot to a friend. For that, South Carolina police battered down his door, fired 57 shots at him and hit him nine times, leaving him paralyzed and without the use of several major body organs. The cops then lied about the circumstances of the raid to make it seem as if Betton deserved every bullet. When Betton awoke from a coma, his leg was shackled to the hospital bed. Prosecutors then charged him with several felonies — enough of them to put him in prison for the rest of his life, should he survive his injuries. For those two sales of pot totaling $100, Betton will not only be saddled with paralysis and debilitating injury, he’ll also have a felony record. The cops who broke down his door, filled him with bullets and then lied about what had happened will suffer no punishment at all.
 
and the 11th circuit can't find a right for people not to be shot by police for simply answering their door late at night

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...illed_man_in_his_own_home_cannot_be_sued.html

Andrew Scott and his girlfriend were playing video games in their Florida apartment late at night when they heard a loud banging at the front door. Scott, who was understandably disturbed, retrieved the handgun that he lawfully owned, then opened the door with the gun pointed safely down. Outside, he saw a shadowy figure holding a pistol. He began to retreat inside and close the door when the figure fired six shots without warning, three of which hit Scott, killing him. Scott hadn’t fired a single bullet or even lifted his firearm.



The figure outside was Deputy Richard Sylvester. He failed to identify himself as a law enforcement officer at any point. He had no warrant and no reason to suspect that Scott or his girlfriend had committed a crime. He did not attempt to engage with Scott at all after he opened the door; he simply shot him dead. And on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that Scott’s parents and girlfriend cannot sue Sylvester because the officer’s conduct was not “clearly” illegal.

The court’s reasoning? Qualified immunity, a constitutionally dubious doctrine that bars individuals from suing the government for violating their rights unless those rights were “clearly established.” And what, exactly, constitutes a “clearly established” right? It’s almost always possible to argue the point either way. Consider the events that led up to Scott’s killing. Sylvester had been pursuing a speeding motorcyclist who, he suspected, might be the same motorcyclist who’d recently committed armed assault and battery. (He had no legitimate reason to suspect this particular motorcyclist was the suspect in question.) Sylvester found a motorcycle at Scott’s apartment complex and decided it was the one he was looking for, even though a license plate search revealed no incriminating information. He and three other officers drew their guns and pounded on Scott’s door. When Scott opened it, Sylvester shot and killed him.

A district court granted Sylvester qualified immunity, holding that no “clearly established law” prohibited his actions. A panel of judges for the 11th Circuit affirmed. And on Thursday, the 11th Circuit, sitting en banc, declined to revisit the panel’s decision. In support of this refusal to rehear the case, Judge Frank M. Hull wrote that Sylvester’s behavior was a variation on “the knock and talk rule.” This rule allows officers to enter private property and knock on an individual’s door for “legitimate police purposes.” Hull reasoned that Sylvester had merely engaged in a form of “knock and talk” and that Scott could have simply declined to open his door. Shooting Scott once he did open the door, Hull wrote, did not violate any “clearly established … constitutional rights.”

In dissent, Judge Beverly Martin shattered this sophistry with painful precision. “Under no standard,” she wrote, “was it reasonable for the police to kill Mr. Scott when he answered the knock at the door to his home. He was not suspected of any crime (much less a violent crime) and he was standing inside his own house without threatening them.” The police, she explained “were not engaged in a permissible ‘knock and talk’ when they killed Mr. Scott.” In fact, “there was no talk here. This was a knock and shoot.” Sylvester had no warrant and no reasonable suspicion that Scott had committed a crime. Martin thus concluded that he clearly violated Scott’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless raid and using excessive force.

The most fascinating part of Martin’s analysis centered around Sylvester’s insistence that the shooting was justified because Scott opened the door while holding a firearm. This “conclusion that deadly force was reasonable here,” Martin noted, “plainly infringes on the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms.’ ” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller, which affirmed an individual right to handgun ownership under the Second Amendment, Martin wrote:

If Mr. Scott was subject to being shot and killed, simply because (as the District Court put it) he made the “fateful decision” to answer a late-night disturbance at the door to his house, and did so while holding his firearm pointed safely at the ground, then the Second Amendment (and Heller) had little effect.

That seems exactly right to me—and it raises an important point: The 11th Circuit has now effectively found an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights are diminished whenever he chooses to exercise his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. Unfortunately, the 4th Circuit reached the same conclusion in a dreadful ruling handed down in January. The Supreme Court should step in soon to remedy the contradiction by clarifying that the exercise of one constitutional right cannot diminish the protection of another. This is an area where liberals and conservatives should be in agreement.

Qualified immunity has clearly become a significant problem in the lower courts. Just last week, another federal appeals court ruled that a homeless man had no right to sue the police officer who allowed his dog to maul him despite knowing the mauling victim was innocent. Its rationale? Qualified immunity. The lower courts are stretching the doctrine past its breaking point. Soon, victims of police violence will almost never be able to sue the officers who violate their constitutional rights. If that’s where we’re headed, why even pretend that we hold those rights in the first place?
 
NYPD cops beat postal worker, judge clears them of charges

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

A Queens judge on Thursday cleared a pair of cops accused of brutally beating a postal worker who unwittingly gave directions to a gunman who murdered two police officers.

The plainclothes officers, Angelo Pampena, 32, and Robert Carbone, 30, faced up to seven years in prison on charges that they violently assaulted postal worker Karim Baker on Oct. 21, 2015.

But Queens Supreme Court Justice Michael Aloise cleared the cops an hour after the attorneys gave their summations.

Their cases were sealed and dismissed.

Pampena and Carbone hugged their attorneys as people in the courtroom were stopped from clapping. The detectives were met with applause from supporters in the hallway outside the courtroom.

“We are gratified by the judge’s decision,” Pampena’s attorney, James Moschella, said. “These officers went out there in good faith and we feel the verdict is not only a vindication of their acts, but the brave actions of all New York City police officers day in and day out."

Detectives’ Endowment Association President Michael Palladino agreed.

“From the beginning, this appeared to be an overzealous prosecution not supported by the facts, so I appreciate the verdict,” Palladino said.

Baker, 27, said the verdict leaves him frightened.

“I’m just very disappointed,” said Baker, adding he thinks a jury trial would have produced a different outcome.

“I took the stand against the officers. I’m definitely worried. I still don’t feel comfortable. I feel I have to watch over my shoulder, watch my back. I just don’t feel secure. I’m just living life like under a rock, trying to be safe and secure.”

Baker, who had just finished his shift, said the cops beat him on a street in Corona after approaching him for parking in front of a hydrant, saying they smelled pot in his vehicle.

The charges against Baker, including resisting arrest and criminal possession of a controlled substance, were dismissed.

The mailman suffered injuries to his neck, face, back and arm and underwent two surgeries and physical therapy.

Baker’s lawyer, Eric Subin, also trashed the verdict.

“It is pretty outrageous,” Subin said. “This beating is caught on video. There’s audio. The audio has him begging for his life and screaming for help. To have a complete acquittal, even of perjury, it just seems to me to be outrageous. It’s a bad day for victims, for justice.”

Baker said the beatdown came during one of about 20 times he was stopped by cops after he directed Ismaaiyl Brinsley to the Marcy Houses in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, on Dec. 20, 2014. There, Brinsley shot and killed Officers Rafael Ramos, 40, and Wenjian Liu, 32, before killing himself.

Baker is suing the NYPD for $100 million. An appearance in the case is scheduled for April 5.
 
http://fox8.com/2017/03/15/veteran-...f-duty-actions-inside-bar/?platform=hootsuite

A veteran Cleveland police officer has been suspended for his actions, while off duty, inside a bar in 2015.

Officer Sean Gorman was suspended for 20 days. The discipline letter received by the FOX 8 I-Team shows Gorman was found guilty of having a gun while he was consuming alcohol inside a bar. He was on an unpaid leave from Dec. 3, 2015. -Dec. 11, 2016. His suspension was served Dec. 12, 2016 through Jan.14, 2017.

His discipline letter was released Monday after a public record’s request .

It’s unclear when he will return to active duty.

In December 2015, Gorman was charged with a felony weapon charge stemming from the incident. The case was sent to the grand jury, but a records search show he was never indicted.

The FOX 8 I-Team broke the story in November 2015 that an internal investigation was underway over Gorman’s alleged actions inside the Clark Bar in Tremont.

A woman called 911 around 8:30 on Nov. 24, 2015 saying an off-duty officer had fired a shot inside the bar. A supervisor, who was sent to the bar after the call was made, advised it was a firework and not a gunshot.

Gorman has been on the force since 1993.
 
you could easily make this a daily thing. 5 pages worth. it sucks. the inner cities and near suburbs are a dangerous jungle at night. it sucks. because the violence is so great it makes everyone less safe and the policy enforcement agents must be over vigilant. it is dangerous; but you can trace it back to unlawful and indeed lawless [free for all] socialistic policies which create the whole stupid crisis. lawlessness.
 
keep on with your idiot assumptions. if you knew even half of my life, you'd realize how ridiculous you sound ROFL

Making excuses? Most spoiled brats do that kind of thing.

I don't give a fuck about your entire life nor do I have to assume anything about you. I read your words and they are clear about what you are.
 
Making excuses? Most spoiled brats do that kind of thing.

I don't give a fuck about your entire life nor do I have to assume anything about you. I read your words and they are clear about what you are.

What excuse did he make?
 
What excuse did he make?

he can't tell you. it's his own innate fear of government that has him worshipping the enforcers as heroes and anyone who doesn't submit like he does is an anarchic spoiled child....or some stupid shit that he has to believe in order to make him feel close to being a man.
 
Back
Top