Ruling Denies Public Access to Police Officer Records

[madmusic]

State Supreme Court determines that the public has no right to information about law enforcement personnel involved in disciplinary cases.
By Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer
September 1, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO — Police disciplinary records will become more secret under a far-reaching ruling Thursday by the California Supreme Court.

The court ruled 6 to 1 that the public may not have access to police discipline records filed during administrative appeals, including the names of officers who have been terminated, unless the officers waive their rights to privacy.

....

Several media lawyers expressed hope that the Legislature would pass a law overturning the ruling. But Bobbitt, the lawyer for the police and sheriff deputies, said the police union's lobby has "typically been stronger than the newspaper industry's."

Police unions across the state are elated with the ruling, he said. "Trust me, they will fight any changes to this decision," Bobbitt said.

EDIT: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-police1sep01,0,3284882.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-california

A lot of DUers are unconditionally pro-police and pro-prosecution, in short, pro-executive branch of government, but does this strike even you has striking down the checks and balances of the Constitution? More alarming, their lobby is more powerful than "the newspaper industry's"? Though I'm not a big fan of the MSM, as Jefferson said, "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

[AX10]

1. This is well over the line!

The government keeps too many secrets already. This can only decrease the miniscule amount of accountability that already exists.
I am pro-justice!

Sheeple, err....I mean "people" who are "pro-prosecution"/"pro-executive branch" first and foremost do not support progressive values.

[madmusic]

7. How 'bout this?

Drug war dumbstrocity of the day.

Marking a new level of absurdity in the war on drugs, prosecutors tried to apply asset forfeiture laws to the gold caps on the teeth of two gentlemen facing drug charges in Seattle. The AP reports:

Prosecutors tried to confiscate the gold tooth caps from the mouths of two men facing drug charges, saying the dental work qualified as seizable assets. They had the men in a vehicle headed to a dental clinic by the time defense attorneys persuaded a judge to halt the procedure. Prosecutors had a warrant to seize the gold dental work, according to documents and lawyers. But they abandoned the effort, saying they mistakenly thought the caps were removable. Defendants Flenard T. Neal Jr. and Donald Jamar Lewis have permanently bonded tooth caps, their lawyers said. "Asset forfeiture is a fairly routine procedure, and our attorneys were under the impression that these snapped out like a retainer," said Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Seattle.

http://alina_stefanescu.typepad.com/totalitarianism_today/2006/04/drug_war_dumbst.html#comments

Are the ovens next?

[Megahurtz]

35. Holy Crap!

:wow:

[madmusic]

42. Relax. They were taking them to the dentist...

Not the ovens. }(

However, when it's time, Halliburton will get the contract.

[MADem]

2. Ah, the people pay them, the people employ them, the people

even cough up for their medical insurance...but they have no right to this information?

I think that's way wrong....

[Vidar]

3. Count me in the opposition. We are far too close to the Gestapo already.

[AX10]

4. Here is something quite disturbing:

"Several media lawyers expressed hope that the Legislature would pass a law overturning the ruling. But Bobbitt, the lawyer for the police and sheriff deputies, said the police union's lobby has "typically been stronger than the newspaper industry's."

If you ask me the Police Unions are TOO strong. Basically, Bobbitt is saying that the police should have powers over and against the first amendment. :wtf:? This is one union that I do NOT support! The government has enough power already.

[madmusic]

13. The most powerful in the state:

A new TV ad paid for the by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association is running in limited rotation in selected markets criticizing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The CCPOA is currently in negotiations with the Schwarzenegger administration. While some speculate that the ad is a strong-arm tactic to coerce an expedited and lucrative contract, others wonder whether the guards are trying to demonstrate the power of their deep pockets at the beginning of the election season. The CCPOA has not yet thrown its support to Angelides, however the union has garnered the highest paying public contracts ever from Democratic administrations. Yet another possibility is that the guard's recognize that Schwarzenegger's current Prison Expansion Plan, a profitable venture for them, needs some backhanded support from people in traditionally Republican strongholds where the ad is running.

More: http://www.cjcj.org/cpp/political_power.php

[madmusic]

24. Here is a more recent report:

Growth of the CCPOA


About the CCPOA
Membership Growth
Membership Demographics
Salaries
Accountability
Public Relations Campaign

About the CCPOA

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) is a union of workers in the field of corrections. The organization is united behind the mission “to promote and enhance the correctional profession and to protect the welfare of those engaged in corrections.” 1

The union has grown from a fledgling group of fewer than 2500 members in 1978 to a powerhouse of 31,000 members who contribute $21.9 million dollars a year. The union employs a 91 person staff including 20 full-time attorneys and uses the services of five lobbyists and a team of public relations consultants. 2

The CCPOA earned exclusive collective bargaining rights in the early eighties and went on to negotiate contracts that, if ratified, will bring correctional officers’ salaries as high as $73,000 per year in 2003. 3 The union has also bargained for better pensions, more training, tighter security measures and employee screening.

However, the union has extended its influence beyond wages and benefits. It has become a political force, contributing more to California candidates than any other organization. 4 It has formed alliances with members of both parties and officials from district attorneys to the governor.


http://www.cjcj.org/cpp/growth_CCPOA.php

[Exiled in America]

5. I find your premise bizaree.

A "lot" of DUers are "unconditionally" pro-police and pro-prosecution?

Really?

Any examples?

As liberal minded folk we're not usually "unconditionally" anything. And the message I hear most often at DU is not "enforcement" - its a belief that too high a percentage of America's population is behind bars for things they shouldn't be behind bars for at all, and that punishment for rich people is almost non-existent while punishment for poor people is excessive and often racist.

So, unless you come armed with a huge number of posts / threads that prove your "lot" of DUers and "unconditionally" claims.... perhaps a rewording is in order.

[madmusic]

9. Nancy Grace is a Decmocrat...

At least some DUers say. If you can search the forums, use those search terms.

[Exiled in America]

14. Nancy Grace is - to my knowledge - not a "DUer"

Your post identifies a "lot" of DUers as "unconditionally" etc. etc.

So - how exactly does this further your claim?

[madmusic]

15. Again, do a DU search for those who support her.

I never said she was a DUer. Where did you get that?

[Exiled in America]

49. You said a "lot" of DUers

So when you gave Nancy Grace as an example, I pointed out that as far as I know she isn't a DUer. Now I understand you meant there are apparently a "lot" of DUers who "unconditionally" support Nancy Grace, and thus using your logic must "unconditionally" be pro-police and pro-enforcement. And I am apparently supposed to do YOUR work (since you made the claim) in order to prove that this is true.

So I did, and what I find are a minority of references to Nancy Grace - hardly a "lot" of DUers and hardly a basic for claiming any DUer "unconditionally" supports anything.

Not a big deal... I'm just saying. :)

[madmusic]

50. How did you do that?

I think you have to be a donor to search the boards. I can't, or would have.

[Exiled in America]

51. You have to know someone who is a donor

I can't afford to get donor status right now. But my co-worker, who is on the computer next to me, has it. :)

EDIT - changed title so it doesn't sound like I have multiple accounts... though I'm not sure that breaks any rules, but I don't so either way I'm good. :)

[madmusic]

54. Are you saying this under oath?

Not that that would make it true.

[Exiled in America]

55. Saying what?

?

Are you talking about my co-worker searching for me? What does it matter to you?
I'm only here at the pleasure of the site administators, and if they don't like whatever I'm doing for whatever reason, they'll certainly get rid of me.

Until then, it doesn't really matter what I can prove or disprove, does it?

[geek tragedy]

22. So are Zell Miller and Toby Keith.

I wouldn't use them to support a stereotype of DU'ers.

[madmusic]

26. Did I say ALL Duers?

That would be sterotyping, and if it doesn't include you, all the better!

You have to admit though that the CCPOA and other "tough on crime" proponents hijacked the victims rights movement and too many Democrats fell for it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. No she ain't.

Just because you register as a democrat doesn't mean you are one.

[saigon68]

23. Plenty of them and a FEW TROOP JOCK-SNIFFERS TOO.

you know who these idiots are---- I invite them to reveal themselves

[Megahurtz]

88. A lot of them actually are,

I've heard it a lot too.

[Exiled in America]

89. weird.

:shrug:

[InkAddict]

6. Constitutional "due process" is being privatized for profit. n/t

[geek tragedy]

8. Human resources records are confidential

for every single other employee out there--why not for police?

I see this is a privacy issue.

[madmusic]

10. How many of those records involve homicide?

Even if "justified," it is still a homicide.

Maybe they will change to wording on police cars: "To protect and to serve... my privacy."

[geek tragedy]

12. Criminal trials are public record, if I recall correctly.

"Homicide" is a criminal justice term.

[madmusic]

16. "Justifiable homicide"

Such as "officer involved shooting" almost never goes to trial, since they are justified, but according to this ruling, an officer could have 100 of these and it would be none of our business.

[geek tragedy]

17. Then it would be similar to grand jury proceedings, which

are also off-limits to the public.

[madmusic]

19. So is the disciplinary record allowed there?

I think not, as the prosecution dictates what is allowed in Grand Jury proceedings, so unless there is flagrant evidence that the public already knows about, such as an indisputable video, the prosecution could simply not submit the disciplinary record to the Grand Jury. And the public wouldn't know about it either way. Same thing.

[geek tragedy]

20. A prosecutor can show disciplinary records to a grand jury.

However, everything that happens in front of a grand jury is non-public, i.e. secret.

[madmusic]

28. I know.

My point was is that if it was an officer involved shooting that got that far, the prosecution probably would NOT show a negative disciplinary record to the grand jury unless he/she had so much public pressure that they had to get a conviction. Hence, the need for powerful 1st Amendment rights.

[geek tragedy]

29. It depends if the prosecutor thought a crime might have been

committed.

If they don't, the dead person's family could still file a wrongful death lawsuit and get access.

But no, private human resources records shouldn't be released to the public.

[zreosumgame]

86. or shoving broomhadles up peoples asses?

or shooting people dozens of times after they are already on the ground?

[madmusic]

92. New York doesn't count.

:toast:

[musiclawyer]

11. Hand up...Hey, Over here, Pick me pick me

I am usually an expert about nothing on DU, but finally something comes along that I know everything about, because I do this every day, for 12 years now. THIS IS NOT REALLY A BIG DEAL. Indeed it is mostly a constitutional/privacy issue than an executive branch/overreach issue. Any civilian and sworn officer has a right to privacy to their employment records. The issue was whether this right applied in administrative disciplinary hearing (even with normally open civil service appeals hearing. Not all agencies have civil service commissions. The court simply said yes, the privacy right applies. If there are further appeals and a case gets to court (either by the employer of the employees volition) then the employment history is fair game. It's always been this way and will always be this way. If a cop's disciplinary record matters at all in any type of case, even involving someone else in government, a good defense counsel can file various motions to obtain those records, if he can convince a judge they are relevant. So its not like the government can hide the ball, when it matters. So this case just confirms what we government lawyers have suspected all along.

[madmusic]

18. Maybe you are right...

Here's a hypothetical.

Say a cop is involved in an "officer involved shooting" that results in death. It is of course ruled justified for self defense reasons or whatever. The immediate family sues. How likely would it be to get the disciplinary record of the officer in comparison to the likelihood of the suit being dismissed?

In other words, the judge could just dismiss the suit because there is no claim since the officer was acting in his official capacity, as ruled by the review board, and if that happens, the lawyer for the family would never have the chance to file motions requesting the disciplinary records.

That could be the case even if the officer were involved in 10 other similar shootings over the last 24 months.

Just a hypothetical.

Where am I wrong?

And even if wrong, that still doesn't explain the law enforcement lobby being stronger than the news industry's.

[geek tragedy]

21. I believe the records would be obtainable in the lawsuit, but

subject to a protective order prohibiting the plaintiff from releasing them to the public.

[musiclawyer]

25. Couple of points to remember

If there is a shooting, there will be an IA (internal investigation). Assume there is no ensuing discipline because the IA clears the officer. Hence there is no disciplinary appeal (unlike the case we're talking about). If there was, the officer's employment history remains closed except to the people deciding the merits of discipline.
..... In the lawsuit, the plaintiff's will file a motion to obtain all the officer's previous IA's and prior disciplinary records involving shooting or bad judgment. 99% of the time they will get this. Any skeletons found in the officer's employment history (or lack therof) are now public (because they are in court). But the case ultimately stands or falls on the particular facts. The past employment history can simply help the attorney shape a jury's perception, if and when the case goes to trial. That's all. Of course with a really bad history, the defense lawyers won't even let it get that far. They'll simply cut a deal early on, not ever wanting the case to see the light of day.

[madmusic]

27. In that case...

1. Can the judge dismiss the suit based on the IA before the plaintiffs have the chance to file their motions?
2. If they cut a deal, can't part of that deal be that the disciplinary record is not made public?
2. If that happens, it it possible the officer could go back to work?

In short, why wouldn't the public have the right to know all of this? I'm all for privacy, but it's rather alarming that the people's privacy is more and more compromised even though they usually don't carry deadly weapons or shoot people, and it seems this is more of a CYA (cover your ass) than a real privacy issue. Obviously, the Supreme Court agrees that it IS a privacy issues, and I have no problem with that, but it is also possible it is a CYA camouflaged by privacy. If so, the legislature should act without cowering to the CCPOA.

[geek tragedy]

30. HR records are considered private for everyone else

who has a job.

A judge can dismiss the suit only if the plaintiff has so little evidence supporting their claims that no rational jury could find liability.

[lonestarnot]

32. Police are public employees.

[geek tragedy]

33. So, all government employees should have their human

resources records read by the general public?

Do you want to take away their right to unionize too?

[musiclawyer]

37. Ok

1. The judge won't know about the IA unless someone files a motion to get it so, no the IA really has very little to do with the judge dismissing the case.

2. Most public agencies cannot exempt legal settlement from public disclosure. But that legal settlement won't address the officer's history at all. The officer's history will only be made public if there is a successful motion to get it before the settlemetn took place.

3. yes, an officer can go back to work even with a disciplinary , unless he or she is fired for misconduct, but most not-squeeky-clean cops are no-good as witnesses any more. It kind of dictates what they can and cannot do on the force in the future.

[madmusic]

41. So, again, what if it was dismissed prior to any motions?

Could the family still subpoena the disciplinary record even though there's no case? Evidently not, since there is a right to privacy.

EDIT: Besides, it might be the way you say FOR NOW, but "The ruling does not, however, automatically close records in cases that go to Superior Court. "That will be the next battleground," said Deputy San Diego County Counsel William H. Songer, who represented the county in a lawsuit brought by the media."

1. Notice the word "automatically," which implies maybe, maybe not, as it is today.
2. This is only the first battle and it seems the next one is to enforce their "right to privacy" in the kinds of cases you are talking about, so they may remain private in the future even if they are sued.

[musiclawyer]

56. That's correct

The police union "might" try to argue in the future that any peace officer personnel records are exempt from public disclosure even in civil litigation..... But that's speculative. and I don't buy it. The unions are not that dumb. They would lose. All employment records are fair game, prior privacy notwithstanding, in any civil or criminal litigation if they are even remotely relevant to the litigation. ...... The more likely argument the unions will make is that all peace officer employment records, deemed relevant by a court, be filed under seal or protective order... I don't think that's good public policy. But again, that is all speculative. As to this case, I think the court made the right decision, balancing competing interests, under the existing law as of now......... If the legislature wanted to, it could make all (pre-lawsuit) civil service disciplinary proceedings and binding arbitration proceedings (for cops and civilians alike) open to the public. That would be way more transparent. But would most civil service employees like this? HELL NO. Their private sector counterparts get to keep their personnel histories private, pre-litigation at least. Why can't they. So the issue is real one of public accountability for cops, and when does the "public" part of that kick in? The court answered the question as best it could. If I was the police unions I'd go celebrate for the day and then turn my attention to more important things.

[madmusic]

62. Thanks, I get the equal protection argument now.

That makes sense. However, I don't consider a police officer the same as a DMV clerk who does my car registration or the same as a welfare worker who approves or denies benefits. How many social workers kicked off the L.A. riots? How many social workers shoot people in the line of duty?

Because the police are law enforcement with the power over the Bill of Rights like no one else, except maybe the national Guard in times of emergency, it would seem they would want to avoid all appearances of secrecy and be proud of their disciplinary record if possible. "To protect and to serve... my privacy" just doesn't seem like a slogan they would want to promote. So while their celebration is well deserved, something has to be done about the law enforcement lobby being stronger than the press.

[musiclawyer]

68. Good point.

Your are going "socratic" on us--like in law school.


"something has to be done about the law enforcement lobby being stronger than the press." And I can't disagree with that sentiment

[madmusic]

75. Glad we can agree there.

And thanks for your comments. They helped explain the issue a great deal.

[lonestarnot]

31. One step closer to a police state.

[Megahurtz]

34. How Fucking Convenient.

Right on the heels of the Police shooting a 19 year old girl to be investigated by the D.A.'s office!

The different newsmedia souces hype this up to make the girl look really bad.
I think that the Cops are responsible for murder because they could have grabbed her arms and hancuffed her. They are two big burly football-player-sized Cops, and the girl was 5 foot 4 120 lbs.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/crimecourts/article_1254911.php

Pro-Police? Not me!

[geek tragedy]

36. If you go after cops and try to stab them, you deserve to get shot.

Self-defense is not murder, my friend.

Your anti-police bias is what drives your false conclusion that they committed murder.

[Megahurtz]

38. Are You Crazy???

:crazy:

Have you ever heard of:

Apprehend and arrest person, put person in jail, charge person, put person on trial for assalt on a Police officer or whatever charge they want to make??? If person is found guilty person serves time???

What the hell? What is this? The Lynch Mob? Hang 'Em High? Shoot first and ask questions later?

Your brand of Redneck-Cowboy-Justice should not belong anywhere in this Country!

Self-defense my fucking ass!

Two big burly football-sized Cops could have easily grabbed the arms of a 5 foot 4 19 year old girl and put them behind her back and handcuffed her! They do it to other people all the time, including strong and large men!

So sorry, but I call TOTAL BULLSHIT on the self defense claim!:argh:

[geek tragedy]

39. Do you have a legal education?

I'm guessing not.

Because anyone with a legal education will tell you that it's self-defense if someone places you in imminent fear of severe physical harm.

The woman charged them with a deadly weapon. What they did is entirely self-defense in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of whether they are police or not.

[Megahurtz]

45. What was that, an indirect attempt at a condescending insult?

Sorry, but I think you are full of bullshit.

It's really irritating when people throw their "education" around like they think they're above others. Come down off your pedestal, Dude!

"Legal Education", whatever you meant by that, has nothing to do with
LOGIC and COMMON SENSEin a situation such as this.
Do you have any logic and common sense?
Well I'm guessing not!

Suppose they didn't carry guns.
A wisp of a girl wouldn't be able to get near them with their size and strength
because they would physically stop her. Ya think?:think:

:think:= A girl of that size would not be able to kill or hurt big burly Cops.:think:

There. I spelled it out for you!:dunce:

Self-defense my ass!:argh:

[geek tragedy]

48. Self-defense is a legal question.

She came at them with a deadly weapon.

That put them in reasonable fear for their physical safety.

If she was unarmed, the shooting would not be justified.

However, one swipe from a knife can fatally sever an artery. Even from a 120 lb woman.

Your 'opinion' that this was murder is entirely irrelevant. 500 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence unambiguously endows people with the righ to use deadly force when someone is charging them with a knife.

[madmusic]

52. True.

But they could have ran from her. Unless she was good at knife throwing, no risk, though they might not have looked manly. All three of them, one cop, two cop, and the teen could have had a good laugh about it before they got to work hunting her rapist.

[geek tragedy]

53. Because stabbing someone in the back is a physical

impossibility?

I don't want to stereotype, but when I hear about big, burly cops I don't think of guys who'd qualify for the track team.

[madmusic]

58. Oh, I get it.

She called the cops herself because she was so set on killing one that she would have chased one for blocks.

Or maybe she felt cornered by the cops like she felt trapped by her rapist and only needed some space.

Protester Shot with Rubber Bullets Shows Police Disconnect, Brutality


Jones Report | August 17, 2006

Elizabeth Ritter was shot four times with rubber bullets by police while she was protesting a Free Trade Summit in Miami, August 10.

This horrifying example truly shows the disconnect between police and the citizens they pose as protecting and serving.

These police actually laugh at their victims, in spite of news cameras and hundreds of witnesses of which they were certainly aware. Arrogant and unchecked power now threatens to be the norm for ever-increasing riot police.

They rule with faux violence and real threats (rubber bullets been known to cause death, in certain cases). Here, Ritter was even shot in the face in an archetypal showdown with goons dressed in black 'storm trooper' uniforms, over-armed to handle a peaceful protest.

They shoot at a business woman repeatedly, even after seeing blood drip from her body. Somewhere, behind a disconnected, under-informed and wrongly influenced "peaceful" force, these instruments of terror think they are protecting the populace rather than subjecting them to tyranny, all the more terrifying for being out in the open.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/170806_rubber_bullets.html (with a video link, watch it!)

[geek tragedy]

59. Why did you cite a newspaper article about Miami?

She came at cops brandishing a knife. That's not an ambiguous situation.

Running at cops with a deadly weapon is suicide.

[Megahurtz]

61. Uh.....Dude.....

She was standing in front of them, not behind them, therefore she could not stab them in the back.

So stabbing them in the back was indeed an impossibility,
unless they are so slow and uncoordinated that they would just stand there.
Since they passed the test to become Cops, I would think that their reactions are quick enough.

If they're quick enough to shoot and kill, then they're quick enough to run,
grab her arms, and a thousand different other ways to avoid shooting her.

[geek tragedy]

63. The person suggested that the cops run away from the person

charging them with a knife.

Now, follow along.

If you're running away from someone who's running towards you, you're exposing your back to them and are incapable of defending yourself.

So, the options were:

1) Run away and possibly get stabbed in the back;

2) Engage in a hand-to-hand struggle with an armed assailant; or

3) follow police training and exercise their legal right to self-defense.

[madmusic]

65. legal right to self-defense?

The law needs changed. When I first heard about this, I thought they were in house without access to retreat at all. Not true. They had a lot of options, like not even getting out of their car in the first place. Or maybe the car was too scared of her too.

[geek tragedy]

66. So, they should let the derange person with a knife--who had already

stabbed one person--just run loose.

Has anyone ever charged you with a knife?

[madmusic]

69. Yes, someone has, but....

I was able to slam a door on his hand, and keep slamming it so he couldn't come in.

Who said anything about letting some one "run loose." C'mon, get real.

[Megahurtz]

74. Yeah and guess what! Someone has charged me with a knife too!

I grabbed her arm and subdued her, she dropped the knife.

It CAN be done, especially by big burly football-player-sized Cops!!!

Will you wake up???

And FYI she DID NOT stab her Mom, her Mom was cut.

[Megahurtz]

71. Their backs were NOT facing her!

Uh, fucking helloooooooo!!!

[geek tragedy]

73. Someone suggested that they run away from her.

I was responding to that suggestion by pointing out that IF they ran away from her, they'd be exposing their backs to a knife-wielding assailant.

[Megahurtz]

76. All you do is not turn your back.

Aren't you able to run without turning your back?

Do you need me to buy you some visits to the Gym or something?:sarcasm:

You don't sound very athletic to me. All Cops should be athletic enough to do this.

[geek tragedy]

80. You're funny, but I've wasted enough time. Toodles.

[Megahurtz]

83. Ha ha!

Gotcha on that one!:7

[Megahurtz]

57. My point was

she wouldn't even be able to get near these guys.

Reread my posts and really think about it.

[geek tragedy]

60. Why wouldn't she be able to get near them?

Do they have superhumanly long arms?

If someone of adult size charges you with a knife, you're in danger.

The DA is investigating this for political, not legal reasons. No way that charges get brought here--and rightly so.

[Megahurtz]

70. I think they have legs, don't you?

You mean you wouldn't run and get out of the way if you were those Cops?

Then they could have physically subdued her, grabbed her arms and cuffed her,
after she ran past them and her back was facing them.

And I wouldn't exactly call a petite 5'4 teenager "adult size".
You don't seem to be hearing anything that I'm saying!

Maybe they're just lazy after all and knew that they could get away with shooting her with a gun.

Suppose they didn't have guns,
do you think that they would not be able to physically subdue
a petite 5'4 teenage girl without getting hurt?

Get real, Dude!

I wonder how you seem to know so much about this case? I could just imagine why you're biased. Either that or you're bluffing.

Seems to me that the only reason you think that this is right, is because you are the type that believes that "if someone lunges toward a Cop they deserve what they get".

No, in a civilized world we arrest and lay charges, not shoot and kill.

This was nothing other than NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE perpetrated by Police.

[geek tragedy]

72. Well, you're entitled to your moral opinion on the matter.

However, under the law they've committed no crime.

[Megahurtz]

77. That's because their higher-ups are making this the legal protocol

for their Police force, and THAT law needs to be changed!

No more lazy, power-abusing Cops!!!:bounce:

[geek tragedy]

79. No, that's the law as it has existed for 500

years under Anglo-American jurisprudence.

[madmusic]

81. No it's not.

If someone is in a park with a knife and I hear about it a block away I can't go shoot the person and claim self defense.

[geek tragedy]

82. No, but if they run right at you with a bloody knife

you can.

[Megahurtz]

85. Not! A civilian would be arrested and jailed immediaty if they killed them

and the Police should be held to the same standards, especially when it is APPARENT
that the situation could have been handled by alternate means.

[Megahurtz]

84. That's interesting.

If I were a Cop I would never go by the book on that one,
it would be according to every individual situation.

I would never have fired a gun at her. That's cowardly!

[madmusic]

40. Was she raped the night before after all?

Was that confirmed?

[Megahurtz]

46. Yes, she was raped.

I have talked to witnesses in the neighborhood and friends close to her Mom.

But don't ask me for a link actually confirming it, because thanks to the recent ruling
that you posted about, you can bet that the facts will get buried.

The newsmedia gets most of their stories from Police reports.
Now that the DA is investigating wrongdoing by the Cops for shooting and killing this girl,
information to the public about this case will be shut down.

This Supreme Court ruling is very, very bad.
We definitely are one step closer to being a Police State.

[brentspeak]

64. It's probably not a good idea to lunge at an officer with a bloody knife

Walk through any New Jack City after dark. Trust me, you'll definitely be pro-police then.

[madmusic]

67. Which is another way of saying...

They fail in New Jack City.

No one is saying the police aren't valuable. No one is suggesting we do away with police departments.

We are only discussing checks and balances.

[Megahurtz]

78. And there was no lunging,

and no backs turned. I saw where it happened.
She was about 20 feet away from the Cops when they shot her.

[truthisfreedom]

43. so what are they trying to hide?

why should a public servant have so little accountability?

[madmusic]

47. Here is the case/decision/opinion

And the dissent starts after page 42.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S128603.PDF (pdf)

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S128603.DOC (doc)

EDIT: "According to those documents, the termination order was based
on the deputy’s failure to arrest a suspect in a domestic violence incident despite
having probable cause to do so, failure to prepare a written report documenting the
incident, and dishonesty in falsely indicating in the patrol log that the victim bore
no signs of injury and the suspect was “gone on arrival.” In the stipulation, the
deputy voluntarily resigned and withdrew the appeal, and the sheriff’s department
withdrew the termination action and agreed to change the deputy’s exit status to
“terminated—resignation by mutual consent” and to “line out” the untruthfulness
charge." p 3.

[Megahurtz]

87. And SO, madmusic.....

....at least we know that we both are capable of actually physically defending ourselves
if someone comes after us with a knife, and we won't resort to being lazy and cowardly
and shoot and kill them with a gun instead.:sarcasm:

:eyes:

I still think this Supreme Court ruling came up after this shooting incident,
and that was no coincidence.

Trouble is,
how can anyone change Police laws when the public is not allowed to know what is wrong???

Sounds like Police Dictatorship to me.

Seig Heil or you will be SHOT ON SITE!:sarcasm:

[madmusic]

93. I would have been lazy and cowardly...

if I had a gun in my hand. :)

But there was no other choice. There was a woman a child in the house and no time to escape anyway. That, I think, is far different than being outside with many more options.

It goes without saying these cops jumped out their car and confronted her without knowing what was going on. If she were threatening other people, maybe that was the right thing to do, but we don't know that, and somehow I doubt it.

You're sure right about the secrecy though. Like the Miami tape showed, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Miss Chybil]

90. "A lot of DUers are..."

I'm sure you have statistics to back up such a statement? I hate blanket statements, no matter which side of the political aisle they come from. A lot of people feel the same way I do. (Yes, the last sentence is meant to be sarcastic.)

[madmusic]

91. That's a blanket statement.

If you are saying there are not a lot of DUers who are "tough on crime." Like I said, I can't search the boards, but it would be no surprise since Three Strikes passed twice, and it couldn't without Democratic help.

[Megahurtz]

94. I have posted Police-oriented stuff before

and yes, a lot of DUer's act Pro-Police no matter what. Another poster calls them "Police Apologists".

[madmusic]

97. Miss Chybil

Maybe you are right. If I could do polls, I would do one asking how many voted for the 3 Strikes laws, and how many here voted against amending it to apply to only violent crimes. It's possible I'd be pleasantly surprised, but it's also possible you would be disappointed, if it would disappoint you that a lot here like it just the way it is.

Anyway, it was only a question and nothing against DU. Given the 24/7 news, it's no wonder so many are "tough on crime." I'm not blaming anyone for that. There is more to it though than what is on the news. That's all.

[Miss Chybil]

98. I was really not making a comment about DU, or anybody in

particular. I just hate when people say "a lot of people," when they are clearly making assumptions. I don't know, there may be "a lot of people" here who do what you think they do, or there may be "a lot of people" somewhere else who do it. More likely there are some people who feel a certain way, a some other people who feel differently. This really has nothing in particular to do with the topic at hand, as far as I'm concerned, but a seemingly insurmountable urge for "some people" to say "a lot of people" feel, or believe a certain way, when they really don't know. It's a pet peeve of mine. It comes off as confrontational to "some people" who don't know what "a lot of people" are really thinking.

[madmusic]

99. blanket statement

c : to apply or cause to apply to uniformly despite wide separation or diversity among the elements included <freight rates that blanket a region>

So I'm actually acknowledging there is a diversity of opinion, and that is not to say any of them are wrong. "A lot" is not even a majority, or needn't be. It could be a minority, but enough to be noticeable. To say that no DUers are "tough on crime" or none are in favor of Three Strikes laws would be a blanket statement. Either way, all non-inflammatory opinions in the debate are welcome. That's how DU works, if I understand it correctly.

Anyway, I take back "a lot" and change it to "some," though the number is the same. You're right. I don't know exactly how many that is and it was a mistake to imply it is more than it actually is. The substance of the post is more important and worthy of debate and this mistake was an unfortunate divergence. So I take it back, with apologies to anyone offended.

That said, I wish the "some" or "the few" or however many there are would comment. It would be interesting to know, for one example, why Nancy Grace fans think she is right.

[Guaranteed]

95. Personnel records are protected against FOIA requests.

I don't see how the interests of the public and the agency in question in this case would be any different, as long as the officer has been put on leave.

In other words, this has been the law for a long time.

[madmusic]

96. The paper tried to argue...

The the disciplinary hearing in front of the commission wasn't part of a personnel record, but was a new record in and of itself. I think. The California Supreme Court didn't go for that anyway. Now this deputy can go get a job anywhere as if nothing happened.

It's possible he was just being just, meaning the victim of domestic violence didn't want to push it and there wasn't any meaningful injury, so for all concerned he let it go. That sure dug him a hole, though, if so.

[madmusic]

100. Three fight suspensions in suicide of 18-year-old at youth prison

Three fight suspensions in suicide of 18-year-old at youth prison
By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer

Last Updated 12:54 am PDT Sunday, September 3, 2006

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Three employees at a youth prison in Stockton are fighting suspensions imposed after the suicide last year of an 18-year-old ward who was isolated in his room for two months, the corrections department said in responding to a public records request from The Associated Press.

The employees at the N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility served their 10-day, five-day and two-day suspensions but are appealing their loss of pay, said spokeswoman Sarah Ludeman.

She would not say why the lengths of the suspensions varied or give other details, citing privacy rules.

Employees took 38 minutes to enter Joseph Daniel Maldonado's room Aug. 31, 2005, after they discovered he had covered his windows and was not responding, the prison system's inspector general said in a December report. There they found the short, slim teenager hanging from a bedsheet. He had been serving a sentence for stealing a car in Sacramento County.

The inspector general's report blamed poor oversight for his death. In addition, the inspector general said employees failed to allow Maldonado counseling, visitors or exercise and missed several signs that he needed mental health treatment.

more: http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/14315709p-15227125c.html