There is an interesting case developing in the Dover Police Department where a video has been released that has resulted in the indictment of Officer Tom Webster for his actions during an arrest on August 24, 2013. The suspect appears to be obeying his commands. What is interesting is that a prior grand jury declined to indict Webster, but prosecutors then tried again with another grand jury and secured an indictment.
Previously, a grand jury declined to issue an indictment and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware found that there was no civil rights violation. In June 2014, Webster returned to full duty with the Dover Police Department and was reassigned to the patrol division. However, on May 4, 2015, it was disclosed that the Delaware Attorney General’s office took this case before a second grand jury and secured an indictment against Webster on the charge of Assault 2nd degree. In response, the Dover Police Department put Webster on leave without pay.
It is fascinating to see the different results in the two grand juries. You be the judge.
The videotape is below.
And can someone please talk about making popcorn again?
That one is so hilarious, I laugh every time I see it on blogs, which is like, every day.
“This assault occurred in August of 2013. How is 20 months not long enough to wait?”
An investigation was undertaken, result? A prior grand jury declined to indict Webster.
Why?
Why another bite of the apple?
And do you have another stale lefty joke to tell?
If not, you couldjust use the Santa one again.
That always makes me laugh.
I asked, is stevegroen seriously arguing against having grand juries?
stevegroen answers: “Yes, he is. It is a bit counterintuitive.”
Well, if we’re going full-retard unConstitutional, why not this:
First the sentence, then the trial.
This assault occurred in August of 2013. How is 20 months not long enough to wait?
http://popehat.com/2015/04/29/cops-we-need-rights-more-than-you-citizen/
“It’s untrue that cops scorn constitutional rights. It’s unfair to say that they oppose fair procedures designed to promote truth. It’s inaccurate to say they oppose measures designed to protect suspects from coercion.
They understand and believe in all of those things.
For them.
To me, when the police demand these special procedures, it necessarily means one of two things. Either they (1) want to protect their ability to lie, or (2) don’t give a sh!t about whether their regular interrogation tactics used on us are fair or reliable.”
Karen S, your points are all valid. Perhaps the issue is actually the media and how it is merely reporting police bad behavior more often these days. (How could that be true? The media is always so accurate!) Certainly the gullibility of the public to believe what the media says could be suspect, or the relevance of what the media chooses to publish.
You wouldn’t deny that the media has reported an unusually high number of riots and protests which have let to questionable police reactions and inquiries and investigations into them lately, would you? My line of questioning was on what was the cause of this, theoretically, and offering my opinion. Opinions are what this blog is all about, not researched essays of facts.
So, my raw personal opinion on whether the actions of the officer were justified, based upon my two viewings of the video presented, are: The demeanor of the suspect appeared consistent with an individual who was unwilling or unable to comply with the officer’s commands. It would be easy to assume this unwillingness (an attitude) or inability (possible influence of drugs), in the presence of a reported possession of a deadly weapon, could mean the suspect had nefarious intentions other than compliance. The physical action taken by the officer was probably meant to force compliance with his command to get down in a timely manner, which obviously was not happening. I don’t have to work in that type of neighborhood or deal with the type of people that officer probably has to contend with on a daily basis, so I am not qualified to judge his actions as appropriate or not. My initial reaction is that a kick was justified. Would I be happy if a policeman kicked me? No, certainly not. But I don’t think like a criminal, and I don’t act like one either, so I seriously doubt I would ever by subjected to that treatment. My opinion of the police officers I have encountered here in Phoenix has been that their behavior has always been professional and reasonable, unlike that of many of my neighbors here and in other poor areas of the city. Biased opinion? Yeah. Progressive? No. Rational, based upon experience? I think so.
“It’s kinda like watching a spoiled, somewhat precocious, five year-old girl facing her growing realization that Santa isn’t real.”
In which Fiver describes no child I have ever met.
Are all lefty arguments straw men, or just those from the low info Progs?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/29/baltimore-and-bolstering-a-police-officers-right-to-remain-silent/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights-creates-a-double-standard
“When I was a prosecutor, nothing made a police officer angrier than being treated like a suspect. If we prosecutors asked the officer too many questions about how he obtained evidence or if we questioned his credibility in any way, he would catch an attitude. “Don’t treat me like a suspect” communicated that officer’s belief that he didn’t have to follow the same rules as the citizens he serves and protects. The Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights makes that double standard the law in 14 states.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers%27_Bill_of_Rights
@ Karen S: Exactly.
How’s that Poilice Bill of Rights? Is that equally applying the law?
Paul C.:
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the film also, but my recollection is that he was primarily motivated by mistreatment of Native Americans, regardless of the source.
Mike – my two memories of the film were what a bad actor he was and that Howard Hesseman was in it.
For some reason, wait for an investigation and apply the law equally appears to be an unreasonable stance for some.
Lefty church= baaaaad.
Righty church= GOOD!
I made brownies Fiver, pass the popcorn.
It’s the police that cause the high crime that drives away jobs and is the greatest threat of violence. The reason why there are all those drug dealers and gangs and muggings of old ladies. Why businesses don’t want to open in unsafe neighborhoods.
Who knew?
Fiver:
I gathered you’ve somehow compared disagreement with your stance to believing in Santa.
I’m sure it makes sense to you.
Probably hilarious to Progs, who golf clap for bringing back that comfortable old joke. ‘Tell it again.‘
Almost like a ritual prayer in the lefty church.
Maybe you could work on new material, just for me.
Like something from Gilligan’s Island or 30 Rock (though no one has actually seen the latter).
Thanks in advance.
This is an incident in Phoenix where a substitute teacher pushed a student after the student called him the ‘n’ word. Mother wants him charged.
There is an ad you have to get past first.
http://www.azcentral.com/videos/news/local/phoenix/2015/05/08/70989444/
Is stevegroen seriously arguing against having grand juries?
Yes, he is. It is a bit counterintuitive.
From what I know, there is no cross-examination because defense counsel cannot attend a grand jury proceeding (although the transcript is available afterward), and the prosecutor can choose whatever evidence he or she desires to put in front of the jurors. What’s more, prosecutors have to get along with cops or they get put in a box somewhere in the basement of the DA’s office because law enforcement will not give them the evidence they want otherwise, so the less evidence offered against a cop’s guilt the more probable the failure to indict a cop, and they all stay a happy bunch.
Something like that. I don’t practice criminal law.
Actually, there is a paper trail in Internal Affairs investigations, as well as criminal investigations of police misconduct. So the data is there.
I do think it is a good idea for there to be external, UNBIASED investigations of allegations of police misconduct, but it is difficult to excise the politics from such an effort.
“We are seeing videos of police encounters with greater frequency for obvious reasons. ”
I gave one obvious reason.
What do you think is the “obvious” reason?
Watching this continuing meltdown is fascinating. It’s kinda like watching a spoiled, somewhat precocious, five year-old girl facing her growing realization that Santa isn’t real.
First there is simply her mindless denial and firm insistence that Santa must be real. She arrogantly thrusts out her chin and repeats all she had been told that originally convinced her Santa was real despite once seeing her parents put the presents under the tree at midnight.
But, as she continues to realize that so much of the Santa myth just doesn’t make sense in light of her growing knowledge of the real world, her repetition of the myth gives way to foot stomping and attacking any and all who would crush her beloved fantasy.
And then, when she not only realizes that Santa could never fit down a chimney but also realizes that her family doesn’t even have a fireplace, it finally hits her, and she moves into full blown tantrum mode.
While it is, of course, mean-spirited to enjoy watching a child’s fantasies be crushed, when it comes to watching the same thing happen to adults who should know better… um, more popcorn, please.