No Accountability Anywhere

[XLFD]

Radley Balko of the Washington Post hits another one out of the ballpark over a recent ruling in Maryland that shows that the police can instigate a gangland-style beating on a college student guiltless of any crime other than being in the way of supposed riot control police.  After the usual police cover-up of the incident, video surfaces that is in complete contradiction of the official version in the police reports.

And even though naked aggression on a non-threatening citizen is obvious in the recording the police agents are not held accountable.  Balko makes the correct reflection at the article's end that the only person who will be punished in this instance will be the taxpayers who pay the money via the court settlements to keep these lying thugs on the street unpunished for their actions.

And this is properly brought up in this area, where we have seen our own local police forces have similar interactions with the public, and escape without even an official blot on their record.

 

Aaron Sailor of the Ludington Police Department, who plies his trade in Ludington after being sued in Federal Court for brutality in LPD Chief Mark Barnett's old bailiwick at the Pontiac Police Department.  Allegedly, he unlawfully enters a local home, assaults from behind a guilt-free woman visiting the property, and then denies her prompt medical attention. 

Derek Wilson, Oscar Davila, and Matthew Warmuskerken of the Mason County Sheriff's Office are recorded on dash cam video issuing a serious beat-down and taser barrage on a citizen guilt-free of any crime.  Not satisfied, they continue tasering him at the hospital while he is chained to the bed for no reason.  Still not satisfied, they prosecute the victim of this brutality for five counts of assault based on false police reports.  Since Warmuskerken was on LPD at the time, both jurisdictions use the taxpayer's money to defend these acts of brutality and settle the issue.

James Luttrull of the Michigan State Police, cruises through the Custer and Scottville areas at over 40 mph over the speed limit on a very wintry night to respond to an address where the caller has called 9-1-1 to check on their phone's capabilities.  He listens for ten minutes outside their window, here's nothing of any criminal significance, then comes in and shoots the guilt-free homeowner without any warning. 

The public is supposed to believe that the victim had a gun pointed at the trooper, and that Luttrull who claims to have saw the gun in the illumination of his flashlight is somehow able to transfer the flashlight, unholster his weapon, and shoot before he is able to say anything.  The recording contradicts the prosecutor's version of events.

In every one of these recent cases, the police officer at worst had some paid vacation.  Unlike their victims, they did not get their liberties and freedoms trampled on, or lose any of their money or property because of their actions.  No accountability, just like the title of this article which follows:

My colleagues on The Post’s editorial board weighed in recently on a Maryland case:

IN PRINCE George’s County, it is now clear that the police, without provocation, can beat an unarmed young student senseless — with impunity. They can blatantly lie about it — with impunity. They can stonewall and cover it up for months — with impunity. They can express no remorse and offer no apology — with impunity.

The agent of this travesty of justice, and this impunity, is Judge Beverly J. Woodard of the Prince George’s County Circuit Court. Judge Woodard has presided in the case involving John J. McKenna, a young University of Maryland student who was savagely beaten by two baton-wielding Prince George’s cops in March 2010, following a men’s basketball game on the College Park campus.

The beating of Mr. McKenna was videotaped; had it not been, the police, who filed no report and then falsely claimed that he instigated the incident and attacked them, may never have been investigated or charged. Yet despite the fact that a jury convicted one of the police officers, James Harrison Jr., of assault nearly two years ago, Judge Woodard has now thrown the verdict out and closed the case.

The judge offered no explanation for her actions … .

There were dozens of witnesses, including police. Yet what followed was an official wall of silence, dishonesty and denial from the department. Mr. McKenna’s injuries, the police initially said, were sustained when he was kicked by a horse.

The cops’ story fell apart when the video surfaced, but even then their stonewalling continued. For months, no one would identify the officers in riot gear who were shown beating Mr. McKenna.

It was only due to the persistence of Mr. McKenna’s lawyers that the cover-up and lies were shredded. At trial, in late 2012, a jury convicted Mr. Harrison on a felony charge of assault. Another officer, Reginald Baker, was acquitted, although he, too, used his baton to beat Mr. McKenna as he lay stunned and defenseless on the ground.

Judge Woodard conducted herself unprofessionally at trial. She failed to disclose an apparent conflict of interest — she had been previously married to a Prince George’s officer who himself was convicted for brutality — until asked about it by a journalist. In court, she exhibited what many observers regarded as overt hostility toward Mr. McKenna, the victim.

Even if the charge had stuck, it’s rather paltry, given the transgressions here. Surely a citizen accused of similar crimes would have been hit with more severe charges. That even the misdemeanor conviction didn’t stick makes this all the more outrageous.

But there’s also a bit more to this story.  There should have been security camera footage of McKenna’s beating. McKenna’s attorneys subpoenaed some 60 hours of video from campus cameras. But curiously missing was the 90 minutes of video from the camera that should have been pointed at the area where McKenna was beaten. Campus police claimed it had already been recorded over. The video was recovered, thanks to a copy recorded by another campus police officer, but the recovered video revealed that the camera had mysteriously been pointed in another direction.

As it turns out, the officer in charge of the campus security video system, Lt. Joanne Ardovini, is married to one of the officers named in the police report about McKenna. If you think that’s all rather convenient, you aren’t alone. Campus police officials then claimed that the video went missing because Ardovini was just too darned conscientious. 

This error would normally have been caught instantly, Dillon said, but in this case, he said the technician’s supervisor — Lt. Joanne Ardovini — had removed herself from the process to avoid a potential conflict of interest: Her husband, Prince George’s County Police Officer John Ardovini, was involved in arresting McKenna on assault charges.

“If she had been part of it, the mistake would have been caught,” Dillon said. But in recusing herself, Dillon added, “she did exactly what she should have done.”

Odd, isn’t it? Because a police officer removed herself from the investigation in order to avoid the appearance of bias in favor of her husband, the police department failed to deliver the precise bit of footage that would have showed that the incident didn’t happen the way the officers, including her husband, claimed it did. A subsequent Maryland State Police investigation also concluded that there was no evidence of a coverup.

So we have police officers who beat an innocent college student, then lied about it. We have a police camera that should have recorded the incident, but for some reason was aimed elsewhere, and footage that went missing but, we’re told, only because the officer who oversees the video system — who happens to be married to one of the accused officers — recused herself. We’re told we can believe this story because it has been verified by investigators who also happen to be police officers. We then have a judge, who was once married to a police officer who was once convicted of brutality, overriding a jury conviction, thus erasing the only accountability to befall any of the state officials implicated. This came after a trial in which the judge failed to disclose her prior marriage, and witnesses say she was openly hostile to the innocent college student who was beaten.

One last point: Were it not for the cellphone videos shot by bystanders, McKenna would likely have been convicted for assaulting the cops and resisting arrest, based on lies told by the officers who beat him. How did Maryland police and prosecutors respond to this? After the incident made headlines, some Maryland public officials responded by harassing and arresting citizens caught recording police with their cellphones and, in some cases, charging them with felonies. Those arrests and harassments have continued, despite assertions from the Maryland attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, a Maryland state judge and at least two federal appeals courts (though not the one that covers Maryland) that citizens have a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in public spaces.

McKenna will at least be compensated for his injuries in the form of a $2 million settlement from the county. That settlement will be paid by taxpayers. So after the beating of McKenna, the subsequent police lies and coverup and the numerous illegal arrests that followed, in the end, the only party punished for any of it will be Maryland taxpayers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/29/no-accou...

[Willy]

I feel sorry for the kid but after watching the video all I can say is the kid was asking for it and the police delivered. How stupid can you be to confront and taunt the police. I know he had a right to be there and the police were wrong in lowering the boom on him but come on, if you put yourself in harms way you should be smart enough to realize that harm will find you.

[XLFD]

That may seem obvious to you and me, Willy, but many of these college kids have grown up in a sheltered existence where they see only positive press on police and have a respect for law enforcement based on having no negative interaction with them themselves. 

Consider if you grew up in the Ludington area and went down to MSU this fall.  If your only source of news information was the COLDNews and the Mason County Press, you would see only the veneration, beatification, and canonization of Trooper Butterfield following his ambush by Eric Knysz.  You would see the community coming together for the blessing of the badges, you would see the bad guys being rounded up in the "From the Record" and "Court News" sections, see positive articles about the police.  You may not even encounter them yourselves.

So when you get down to East Lansing and celebrate the latest Big Ten or national title in football or basketball and go up to the police line to ask about why they are blocking the street where you may want to go, how are you expected to be prepared for the assault this kid got? 

Get your kids to read the Ludington Torch, and they may be those smart kids in the video who ran in terror from that marauding group of mounted ruffians, knowing that the gendarmes can do whatever violence they want to you, with no repercussions, and toss you in jail to boot.  But chances are the smartest Torch readers would be the one that videotapes the event at a distance.

[Willy]

The way this student acted certainly showed no respect for the cops that were standing in front of him in riot gear. By respect I mean respecting the situation and the potential for an altercation which was obvious to the even the most simple minded. The cops weren't there to chaperone a dance so either this kid is the dumbest creature on the Earth or he intentionally leaned over the plate and received a fastball to his noggin.

[Johnny]

That was pretty brutal by the Maryland Officers.  The question I have is when the Police are obviously trying to move people out of a public roadway and obviously giving orders, why would that student walk up to the Police and do or say what none of us know due to the poor quality of the video.  If more people just listened to commands given, then a lot of people would not be in trouble and not get hurt. I have gone down to MSU and many big Universities and I have never done anything like this.  It has nothing to do with where you grew up or your opinion on Police.  Its about whats between your ears.  If you are told to back up, walk the other way, get out of the street...you do it right?  Its amazing that student was able to get into a University due to his intelligence or lack there of shown in the video.

The only thing I don't understand is how that video relates to anything with Officer Sailor, the County Deps and the trooper.  Once again Tommy, you are bringing up repetitive opinions and stories.

The key word you finally used is ALLEGEDLY.  Tom, for being the somewhat smart individual you claim you are, you would understand anyone that has police contact can file a lawsuit or a complaint.  Once again you bring up the Trooper shooting...please answer me,....Whats the Trooper suppose to do when a guy comes out of a hallway and has a gun pointed at him?? Your opinion is...He should tell the crazy drunk man to drop the gun several times because he drops the subject. I am sure that's what they are trained to do, when they aren't feet away from someone with a gun pointed at them.  Where is the wife making comments about how wrong they were and filing lawsuits?  Its funny one of the people complaining is you.   A person who was not there to witness what the Troopers saw and the one who is upset because he doesn't agree with the answer he got from the Prosecutor.  I guess with all your Law background, you would know more than the Prosecutor.  With all of your Law Enforcement background, I guess you know more than the Troopers of how to act in that situation.  One of the easiest things to do in life is  to judge others actions and say what you would do in a situation you weren't involved in or have ever been involved in.  

In a separate post on hear, you stated you were struck by a car and flew 70 feet up in the air.  That's awful to hear and i am glad you are ok.  My question is, didn't you hear the car coming?  Why didn't you move?  How do you know alcohol was a factor?  I don't agree that alcohol was a factor, maybe you were in his way. If it was at the entrance to the State Park, maybe the stop sign was visible, maybe it was to high and the driver couldn't see it.  Maybe the driver wasn't from the area and wasn't aware that he had to stop there.  

Pretty easy to make a judgement and opinion when I wasn't there.....

[XLFD]

I'm wary of what happened with Bill Marble because the material on the police report, the prosecutor's statements, and the audio recordings do not match up very well.  I'm wary because of the various agencies blocking divulging public records requests and any immediate and thorough synopsis of what happened.  I'm wary because Nancy Marble was led off in handcuffs after seeing her husband killed for no reason, and by the way the shooting officer neglected the laws he was supposed to uphold that night, even before he shot Mr. Marble. 

As for the state park incident that happened on July 29, 1994, you're free to look up the newspaper archives of the COLDNews or FOIA request the county sheriff's office prior to me posting it later this month.  Let's just say there was plenty of eyewitnesses and forensic evidence to verify the events of that night, much of which I cannot remember.  I was hit by an airborne vehicle that had collided with the back end of a 30 ft. travel trailer, I was off the road when I was hit, the driver was blood tested.  The end of your rant is just foolish pratter due to complete ignorance on your part.

I would also like to key in on your phrase:  "If you are told to back up, walk the other way, get out of the street...you do it right?"  I would generally ask "Why?" unless the reason was understood, wouldn't you?  I am under no compulsion to obey such orders unless it is from a superior officer in the military or any paramilitary organization I am a member of.  Policeman, in general circumstances, do not have the authority to order you around without a lawful reason.  If you wish to cede them such authority under any circumstances, Johnny, you are a submissive sheep.